The behaviour of those infatuated by Stanford's riches was, frankly, the worst aspect of the whole saga: from the ECB officials, who fawned over him when he descended the steps of his helicopter at Lord's, to the former greats, who knelt down and polished his boots at every opportunity, to the players' representatives, who did their best to catch the wave of excess, writes Michael Atherton in the Times.

When a game is played for money only, it is worthless, and enough people care about the England cricket team not to want to see them playing worthless fixtures. The England cricket team mean an awful lot to an awful lot of people and they do not like it when they see something valuable, something that represents them, reduced to a rich man's plaything.

It's not just the cricketers who are suffering. Soccer star Michael Owen and golfer Vijay Singh, could also be affected by the Stanford fallout. Kevin Eason has more in the Times.

The Stanford meltdown will have far-reaching consequences for a small country like Antigua but cricket will remain largely unaffected, writes Mike Selvey in the Guardian. The suffering of cricket is by comparison small beer and will be most severe on a personal level.

His actual financial stake has been minimal, certainly where the WICB is concerned, an organisation with whom he has been at loggerheads. It agreed a licence fee for his regional competition of $1m per year over five years but he has paid only $2m of that for the two that have been staged. That is it. He paid local cricket associations $100,000 for development purposes during his regional Twenty20 competition and for a while a stipend of $15,000 per month for upkeep of facilities and so forth.

Watching so many anxiety-ridden citizens queue up outside the Bank of Antigua was unnerving, given that so many in the island have invested their money with Stanford, writes Stephen Brenkley in the Independent.

A boat builder from the US said he was there to check his funds. “There have been statements from all sorts of people including the Prime Minister but nobody has yet been able to guarantee that my savings are safe,” he said. Only Charlie Baltimore, a taxi driver, seemed sanguine. “I ain’t gonna jump when other people jump,” he said.

In the same paper, Tony Cozier writes that the West Indies Cricket Board can take a few positives from Stanford, particularly his contribution to the impoverished associations which had earlier gained little from the regional board. His impact was felt in other areas too.

Adamant that his Superstars had to defeat England in the $20m match, Stanford ordered them into a preparatory camp for six weeks and appointed a large support of coaches, trainers and physiotherapists to look after them. It was the kind of regime with which West Indian cricketers were unfamiliar. Its advantages were evident in the side’s slick |performance in beating England.

In the Telegraph, Simon Briggs writes that the ECB chairman Giles Clarke, renowned for having an answer to every question, was at a loss for words when grilled over the Stanford dealings.

February 18, 2009

The hall of shame

Posted on 02/18/2009 in The Stanford saga

	ECB's involvement with Stanford was a "huge mistake" © PA Photos

Now that Stanford's involvement with English cricket has crumbled, the ECB has little choice but to admit that their reputation has taken a beating. Derek Pringle in the Daily Telegraph has more.

If they did look into his past they would have discovered that Stanford had been kicked out of the Caribbean island of Montserrat by the British Government in 1990, after setting up his bank there five years earlier. He then took his bank in Antigua where, at the last count, his commercial interests employ five per cent of the island's workforce, a human travesty in the making if it all goes pop.

James Lawton in the Independent believes that Allen Stanford should not be the only one heading for the dock, but also those who are entrusted with running the game once described as the foundation of the British Empire.

There was an obligation to move with the times, the critics were told. Twenty20 generated vast revenue in India, it was the future. Stanford was seen as English cricket’s ally against the growth of the Indian cricket empire. No matter that the subtleties of the game may be beyond him, that the meaning of cricket’s past was of no consequence. He had what everyone wanted. He had oodles of money.

That, despite the third-rate nature of his cricket circus, meant he was not a man to be discounted when the future of the game was weighed.

The ECB certainly isn't the only loser, reveals Mike Selvey in his blog on the Guardian website. The Chance to Shine campaign for the development of cricket throughout the Caribbean, the 2,000-odd people he employed and the players in his Stanford Superstars team who invested the money on advice, would have no doubt been dealt a severe blow as well.

Money often brings out the worst in people. It has certainly brought out the worst in English cricket and the men who run it, and they have got exactly what they deserved, writes Mike Atherton in the Times.

Patrick Kidd in the same newspaper reveals more about the steely businessman beneath the charm of a typical Texan.

The seeds of Stanford's downfall were evident when ECB made their move. Andy Bull in his blog on the Guardian website throws up questions about what due diligence was done.

Elena Moya in the Guardian, sifts through VenEconomía, a Venuzuelan economics magazine, and reveals how the alarm, regarding Stanford's suspicious finances, was raised.