The ICC Crickets world governing body is a divided organisation at the moment.
On Monday they met virtually to discuss the process for electing a new permanent chairman to replace Shashank Manohar, whose tenure has come to an end. However, the meeting ended in some disarray, with the 17 members unable to agree on the voting process and format. Not for the first time, the ICC appears split along national lines, with India on one side of the argument, and Pakistan on the other.
Manohar assumed office in November 2015, but stepped down earlier this year, with Hong Kongs Imran Khawaja succeeding him on an interim basis.
There are currently a number of candidates for the post of chairman, with Colin Graves, formerly head of the ECB (England and Wales Cricket Board) regarded as the current front-runner.
Dave Cameron, formerly head of West Indies Cricket, is also in the frame, and claims that he has the votes necessary to secure the nomination, even though his own board has failed to support him. Chris Nenzani of South Africa has also expressed an interest in the job.
And then there is Sourav Ganguly, currently chairman of the BCCI, who is regarded as a dark horse for the position. In theory, his tenure with the BCCI has come to an end, and he is now required to spend a cooling off period, having previously spent six continuous years in administrative positions within Indian cricket.
A waiver appeal against that provision has been lodged with the Indian Supreme Court, and he may only make his move for the ICC job if that fails.
However, it may be some weeks yet before the final candidates are known, given that the 17 Members of the ICC Board are still divided over the voting process.
11 members, led by India, but also including England, Australia, and South Africa are in favour of a simple majority of votes deciding who should be next chairman, but they are opposed by Pakistan, interim chairman Khawaja, the one independent director Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, and the three associate members Malaysia, Scotland, and Singapore. They insist that the normal two-third majority rule should be applied.