Beware an old man in a hurry. It's a phrase that has reoccurred several times in recent days when reflecting on Colin Graves' period as chairman of the ECB.

Graves never set out to be a cricket administrator. He was sucked into it by a desire to help. Seeing his beloved Yorkshire sink into debt, he first lent them money and then - frustrated by the lack of progress - rolled up his sleeves and threw himself into the fray as an executive chairman. Very much the type to identify with the 'If you want a job doing properly, you'd best do it yourself' philosophy, he saw the ground bought and redeveloped while the team was rejuvenated. It's no exaggeration to state that he saved the club. And, bearing in mind how many players Yorkshire continue to provide to the national cause, it is a contribution for which all lovers of England cricket should be grateful.

Having been dragged into cricket administration, Graves then turned his attention to the wider game in England and Wales. Frustrated by England's disappointing performances in limited-overs cricket, the diminishing relevance of the sport to the wider public and the disparity between the reserves of the governing body and the debt of the first-class counties, he resolved to make a difference.

Impressing his fellow county chairmen with his dynamism, his commitment and, most of all, his not being Giles Clarke, he threw himself into the role just as others of his age and means might have been planning on more time on the beach in Barbados. And, remember, this is an unpaid role. No reasonable analysis can doubt that he entered into it full of good intentions. But we know where the road paved with good intentions leads and the first fudge of many - the first deal done in the background - was to see Clarke, who really should have been given a carriage clock and farewell party, installed as the first (and quite possibly last) president of the ECB and their representative at the ICC. It ensured he went quietly.

Graves, meanwhile, made it clear he wasn't going to hang around. While others had seen their plans bogged down by bureaucrats and committees, Graves wasn't going to enter into protracted consultations and negotiations. Even before he was officially confirmed as chairman, he told ESPNcricinfo there would be "no more outside reviews of the game while I'm chairman". He was going to seize the issues and shape them to his will. And, by giving himself a time limit of five years, he removed any temptation to prevaricate or delay. The clock was counting and he was, to put it slightly harshly, an old man in a hurry.

Giles Clarke and Colin Graves at Lord's during the first Test against New Zealand in 2015 Getty Images

There was little time for face-saving departures or dignified exits. Not when a coach or team director needed sacking. So much so that the former found out when his wife read the news on Twitter and the latter, given assurances as to his future in the morning, was axed in the afternoon.

A propensity to 'say it as he sees it' - a virtue in many ways, but not always conducive to chairing a governing body - soon caused more issues. He got himself - and the board - into a fearful mess after breaking ranks and suggesting Kevin Pietersen could force his way back into the England sides. Then he provided the team talk for England's opposition ahead of their Caribbean tour in early 2015 when he suggested West Indies were a "mediocre" side. And then, on the eve of the domestic T20 competition in England and Wales - a competition that many of the counties rely upon for revenue - he produced a Gerald Ratner moment by dismissing it, too, as "mediocre".

No-nonsense? Maverick? Or simply unprofessional? Whatever. It was the seen as the inevitable flip-side of the dynamic character that the board had elected to shake things up. A price worth paying. "Yes," a fellow board member admitted to ESPNcricinfo in recent days, "there are times his enthusiasm and passion get the better of him. But it's only because he's so keen to make a difference."

Like Clarke before him, he was a successful entrepreneur who had gained success through his own efforts, energy and ingenuity. He was used to doing it himself. Again, it is an admirable quality. But it doesn't always lend itself to the more delicate, consensual nature of committee work. He wasn't running his own business any more. He was leading a highly complex body catering for wildly divergent priorities. It sometimes calls for different skills.

"Back me or sack me," roared Graves as the meeting began, before putting each of the county chairmen on the spot individually"

As progress on new projects - notably the acceptance of the new-team T20 competition - threatened to stall, more corners appear to have been cut. Andy Nash, the former Somerset chairman and, until a few days ago, an ECB board member, has claimed on his Twitter account that his club were "given to believe at the time that Taunton would feature as a co-host venue". His version of events is supported by Somerset committee members, who hosted a private presentation from Graves and ECB chief executive Tom Harrison and insist were told they would be co-hosting a team with Bristol.

Somerset also have a letter, signed by Graves, that they allege provided encouragement to their hosting aspirations. With legal exchanges having taken place, Somerset allege there were suggestions made that, should more major matches appear in the schedule (and they probably will), they will be well-placed to host them. Somerset may well accept such a compromise, but is that how business should be conducted at a national governing body?

It should be conceded that several counties were on Graves' side, but recalcitrant counties were corralled into backing the plans in a notoriously feisty meeting at Lord's in September 2016. "Back me or sack me," roared Graves as the meeting began, before putting each of the county chairmen on the spot individually. "What's it going to be?" he allegedly challenged each one as he went round the room individually. And, with the first portion of the room having backed him - cynics suggest the meeting was arranged to ensure an early lead in the voting - those who were determined to vote the other way reasoned that, rather than be martyrs to a lost cause and in doing so deny their counties the patronage that might follow, they would vote for the plans. "Intimidating" and "oppressive" were the words used to describe the performance more than once.

Is this the way democracy should be? Too hurried for due process or debate? Too certain to waste time with other opinions?

Colin Graves and Peter Moores in Barbados during the third Test against West Indies in 2015 Getty Images

Meanwhile a valuation conducted on behalf of the ECB suggested the broadcast rights of a new-team T20 competition were vastly superior to anything achievable from the existing tournament. It was stated that annual revenues of up to GBP35 million could be anticipated for the new competition and a maximum of GBP7 million for the existing one. Such a forecast was soon made to look deeply suspicious by other valuations, but this had long since become a propaganda war and some of the counties - desperate for a few dollars more - took the bait.

And, all the while, those trusts nagged away in the background. Was it really appropriate that the chairman of the ECB had set up trusts that were owed in excess of GBP20 million by Yorkshire, the legacy of his loans to the club? Legally it was. The trusts, converted so they were run independently and no longer benefited Graves personally, were put in the names of his family members.

But morally? Instinctively? Was it right that Graves' Family Trusts were reliant upon Yorkshire's successful financial performance (and were paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of interest a year) to be serviced and repaid? Was it right the trustees retained a veto over who could join (or be voted off) the Yorkshire board?

Clearly the ECB thought it a reasonable question. For, in March 2016, they produced a statement to ESPNcricinfo guaranteeing Graves "declares an interest and abstains from any vote or decision which could be deemed a conflict of interest (as is a statutory duty)". And, while the major match allocation was rubber-stamped by the board a few weeks ago, Graves briefly left the room.

Which sounds fine. But what about all of those decisions in between times? Who was left to decide whether there might be any conflict when Durham were stripped of their right to host Test cricket, thereby reducing the competition for such games in the north of England and indirectly benefitting Yorkshire? And who was left to decide whether there might be any conflict when a meeting, chaired by Graves, rejected the working party recommendation for the future of domestic T20? Did they do so on the grounds that it may not contain the local derby games that Yorkshire, whose domestic T20 ticket sales record might be described as "mediocre", rely upon disproportionately? Instead a new competition was devised in which staging fees were agreed for - you guessed it - Yorkshire (among others). That's the same Yorkshire who were awarded Tests against both India and Australia in the recent allocation.

Charlotte Edwards and Colin Graves chat at a Chance to Shine event Getty Images

Let's be clear: Yorkshire are a terrific club. There is no fault of them implied or presumed. But most reasonable observers will acknowledge it is remarkable how almost every major decision made in English cricket over Graves' period in office has benefited them. And they may acknowledge, too, at least the possibility of the perception of a conflict of interest there. And while that is the case, the governance of the ECB has to be open to serious questions.

Finally, what Nash described as "the straw that broke the camel's back". The Times published details of plans to compensate the Test-hosting grounds in years they did not host Tests. While the ECB insist the plans were only at the discussion stage and would, in April, have been addressed by the board, Nash was incensed that, as a board member, he should have found out about them from the media. Furthermore, it appears Glamorgan had already received a payment and at least two other clubs had received such assurances that they had budgeted for the payments. The NTGs (non-Test Match Grounds) were furious and concerned that one of the key principles of the ECB - an equitable distribution of revenues - might have been abandoned without even the courtesy of proper discussion.

Several counties are consulting their lawyers. Preliminary advice suggests that, if payments were made, they may not comply with the ECB's own constitution (the Articles of Association state no club can be treated in a prejudicial manner) and might be considered ex-gratia and therefore unlawful. Not only might the money have to be repaid, but those who unilaterally sanctioned the payments could be held personally responsible.

"Graves railed against "leaks". But, as Leonard Cohen put it, "there is a crack in everything: it's what lets the light in". And without those leaks, most of the cricket-loving public would have no idea what was going on"

In an attempt to reassure the counties, Graves addressed the chief executives in a meeting towards the end of last week. Messages exchanged by CEOs (or their deputies) during and after the meeting include the words "unconvincing", "damaged" and, most powerful of all, that "there seems to be a consensus" that he might not be telling the whole story. Meanwhile two county chairmen used the word "feudal" to describe the workings of the ECB. One of them said he couldn't be named as he feared "reprisals" against his county. Let that sink in for a moment.

In that meeting, Graves railed against "leaks". But, as Leonard Cohen put it, "there is a crack in everything: it's what lets the light in". And without those leaks, most of the cricket-loving public would have no idea what was going on in those committee rooms at Lord's. This is, after all, an administration that served the counties with ten-year non-disclosure agreements - unprecedented in a sport where the clubs are, on the whole, owned by their members and a fact that was, initially, denied by the ECB - and that claimed their research justifying the new-team T20 (even though it contradicted research conducted as part of the Morgan Review just a few years' previously) was so persuasive that no-one could deny it; it just wasn't persuasive enough to publish. And it surely speaks volumes for this ECB administration that, when they required a new communications director, they called upon Team Sky of all places.

Might all this be a conspiracy theory? Might it just be the product of the mind of a couple of overly cynical journalists? Perhaps. But when the ECB were trumpeting their improved governance - the independent board members, the new regulatory committee - they didn't mention that the chairman of the nominations committee - the man who stood at the gateway to all other committees - was (you guessed it): Colin Graves. He will also chair the 'board' (it's not really a board; it's a committee) for the new-team T20 competition.

Yes, he has plans to step aside as chairman of the nominations committee soon. And yes, there is every possibility that he took on the role to ensure it was, in his mind, fulfilled properly. But this isn't how good governance is meant to work. It isn't meant to be reliant upon the goodwill of individuals, it is meant to offer systems that ensure it through checks and balances and scrutiny. It is meant to ensure different views from diverse perspectives. Not all of them filtered through the vision of one man.

The problem has been compounded by weakness elsewhere. The PCA, currently without a chief executive, who is off sick and a deputy chief executive, whose role was not replaced when Jason Ratcliffe stood down, is lacking the authoritative voice it once had.

At a time when a prominent administrator is warning that more than 50 percent of professional players should be fearing for their jobs, that is a significant failure. The PCA needs to be mobilising now but news that David Leatherdale, the absent CEO, asked the ECB to draft his response to the introduction of the new-team T20 suggests the organisation lacks the independence it once had. In Leatherdale's absence might an interim - perhaps a predecessor such as Angus Porter, or Richard Bevan or a former deputy such as Ratcliffe - be required?

The newly independent ECB board is a mixed blessing, too. While the departure, in May, of board members who have served Surrey, Middlesex and Nottinghamshire might sound like a good plan (Nash, the former Somerset chairman, has already gone), there are legitimate questions about the cricketing expertise of the new board members. Their experience in the police, teaching and social work will, in its way, be an asset but will it allow them to provide the specific, cricket-centric scrutiny that may be required? Or might it, perhaps inadvertently, result in Graves and co. having an easy ride? Especially if he is involved in the selection of the new board members. Who, some of the 18-first-class counties, have asked, will represent them? Who will give them a voice?

Other regulatory bodies seem oddly quiet, too. A couple of individuals on parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have shown passing interest in events at the ECB but, whether they are too busy or their eye is on more glamorous headlines, they have so far failed to act. It currently seems, as Bob Dylan put it, as if "The cops don't need you and man they expect the same". Some of the counties, too, need to have the courage to turn their whispers into roars.

More and more of late, Graves' period in office has revived memories of the last days of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in No. 10. Leaders who are so certain of their mission and message that they have stopped listening - or caring - about views from outside the bubble. To do so would be weak. To do so would cause delays. To do so would threaten progress. And when that happens, well, it's time for a change, isn't it?