BCCI & ECB take cuts due to demise of the "Big 3"

[TalhaSyed]

BCCI have taken a huge cut in the amount of money they receive from the ICC following the demise of the Big 3, whilst ECB have also taken a bit of a cut.

CA have not been affected whilst all the other boards have benefited.

Do you think this distribution is fair? Should the BCCI get a bigger cut? Is it good for Ire & Afg to be getting a cut f the profits now?

 

[Slog]

Too much going to Afghanistan and Ireland

 

[cricketjoshila]

So BCCI's share is cut by almost half while ECB loses 1 percent and CA loses nothing and this is based on equity and people will say has no racial connotations.

 

[Major]

Ireland and afghanistan were getting nothing in the past?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

So BCCI's share is cut by almost half while ECB loses 1 percent and CA loses nothing and this is based on equity and people will say has no racial connotations.

Sir, what will be BCCI's next step?

 

[Markhor]

PCB should use this extra money to invest in domestic.

 

[Pakpak]

So BCCI's share is cut by almost half while ECB loses 1 percent and CA loses nothing and this is based on equity and people will say has no racial connotations.

Why are you so surprised? India should have known this before getting into bed with ECB and CA. It was painfully obvious to even the thick that they were only riding on BCCI's coat-tails for a bigger share.

 

[Pakpak]

PCB should use this extra money to invest in domestic.

We both know it will never happen. While we earnt 70 million profit last year the domestic trophy prize was a mere £13000 for BOTH teams.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Why are you so surprised? India should have known this before getting into bed with ECB and CA. It was painfully obvious to even the thick that they were only riding on BCCI's coat-tails for a bigger share.

It will be interesting to see what BCCI will do now. I am expecting the formation of new world cricket body that is going to compete with ICC.

 

[Zak_Fan]

So BCCI gets 5 times the amount Afganistan or Ireland get. Doesn't look fair to me.

 

[Thivagar]

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] Didn't CA make $100,000,000 in revenue couple of years ago ? Does the share coming from ICC really matters to them ?

Anybody know how much BCCI make per year excluding the share from ICC ?

 

[Thivagar]

1.Ireland needs to perform much better than they have recently to prove their worth. Been playing some trash cricket lately. Ireland needs to start scouting for bowlers that could bowl fast, spinners that could get decent turns and batsmen that could hit harder; players with high ceiling.
2. Afghanistan already provides lots of help from their government and private sponsors. All their players are awarded with a car and they started flying Business class as far as 2010. Due to the low currency value, ICC's distribution will do wonders for them.
3. Can't see how CSA and SLC deserve to get the same share. South African' currency exchange value is higher, their stadiums are bigger and that means their operation cost will be generally much higher.

 

[Convict]

[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] Didn't CA make $100,000,000 in revenue couple of years ago ? Does the share coming from ICC really matters to them ?

Anybody know how much BCCI make per year excluding the share from ICC ?

CA will be making the same share as pretty much every other nation and have no real change regardless

 

[Convict]

So BCCI's share is cut by almost half while ECB loses 1 percent and CA loses nothing and this is based on equity and people will say has no racial connotations.

Cutting CA's share would see CA get less than West Indies and New Zealand.

Why exactly are you so obsessed with race as the excuse when its really money that is the excuse?

If India has the most extra money then the cuts can only come from India

 

[cricketjoshila]

Cutting CA's share would see CA get less than West Indies and New Zealand.

Why exactly are you so obsessed with race as the excuse when its really money that is the excuse?

If India has the most extra money then the cuts can only come from India

So since India is good at earning money,punish them.LOL.

 

[Hasan123]

So since India is good at earning money,punish them.LOL.

I don't know if you follow the premier league but the tv money is shared out equally even though the top team teams earn more than the smaller teams .

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

So since India is good at earning money,punish them.LOL.

I don't want BCCI to take cuts. Bring back Srini please.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I don't know if you follow the premier league but the tv money is shared out equally even though the top team teams earn more than the smaller teams .

This isnt premier league.There all money earned by clubs ultimately go into English Football.Here there are separate countries.Secondly can any EPL club claim to be responsible for more than 50% of the money generated?

 

[aloo paratha]

So since India is good at earning money,punish them.LOL.

Still earning more than all the other boards, by a long shot. People like you are the reason the big 3 revenue model even existed.

 

[KingKhanWC]

This isnt premier league.There all money earned by clubs ultimately go into English Football.Here there are separate countries.Secondly can any EPL club claim to be responsible for more than 50% of the money generated?

Here the revenue is shared as part of a group. Revenue is generated by playing others in the group. India may generate more by playing NZ but without playing NZ, there would be no revenue. India on it's own has no value, being part of the ICC and playing other nations in various tournaments gives it value.

 

[90MPH]

This isnt premier league.There all money earned by clubs ultimately go into English Football.Here there are separate countries.Secondly can any EPL club claim to be responsible for more than 50% of the money generated?

Just take off your BCCI glasses and think as a cricket fan as well.

The system agreed in 2014 was a ridiculous poor deal and bad for the game of cricket in general, especially for teams like Afghanistan and Ireland. They need whatever money they can get to build for the future.

The one proposed now is much fairer and it's not like the poor BCCI will go bankrupt because of it.

I am glad finally we are getting an ICC with some teeth that fair to all and not one that cosies upto the rich and powerful.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Just take off your BCCI glasses and think as a cricket fan as well.

The system agreed in 2014 was a ridiculous poor deal and bad for the game of cricket in general, especially for teams like Afghanistan and Ireland. They need whatever money they can get to build for the future.

The one proposed now is much fairer and it's not like the poor BCCI will go bankrupt because of it.

I am glad finally we are getting an ICC with some teeth that fair to all and not one that cosies upto the rich and powerful.

How is it fair that BCCI's share gets reduced from near 20% to 10% while ECBs is reduced only from 6% to 5% and CA's stays the same?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Here the revenue is shared as part of a group. Revenue is generated by playing others in the group. India may generate more by playing NZ but without playing NZ, there would be no revenue. India on it's own has no value, being part of the ICC and playing other nations in various tournaments gives it value.

Who told you that India wont be getting opponents to play?

 

[90MPH]

How is it fair that BCCI's share gets reduced from near 20% to 10% while ECBs is reduced only from 6% to 5% and CA's stays the same?

You missed the point again. Stop thinking about the rich boards like BCCI and ECB and think about the lower teams like the one mentioned.

Cricket is not a game just for the elites, it has to be grown among new teams.

Teams like Ireland need the cash so they can compete in the future. Now how they use the cash and use it appropriately only time will tell but the 2014 deal was such a bad deal for these lower teams I can't believe there are still people defending it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Who told you that India wont be getting opponents to play?

You might get Bangladesh and Afghanistan to join this fantasy breakaway council, enjoy the party

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

It took BCCI only 3 years to bring cricket to its knees Not fit to lead.

 

[FreePalestine]

main thing is this money being spent on domestic cricket, as some have said before! This is so unbelievably important. Especially in our current state.

 

[Itachi]

You missed the point again. Stop thinking about the rich boards like BCCI and ECB and think about the lower teams like the one mentioned.

Cricket is not a game just for the elites, it has to be grown among new teams.

Teams like Ireland need the cash so they can compete in the future. Now how they use the cash and use it appropriately only time will tell but the 2014 deal was such a bad deal for these lower teams I can't believe there are still people defending it.

So lets say, the elder son, who brings more money to the table, should get more cut (to increase all others share) because he earns more while the incompetent Brothers stays at home and eating off their share which in turn came from him.

ICC is putting itself in unfavorable position by going with this.

Last time, it did the same, BCCI out thrown ECB and CA. this time, it'll be uglier.

 

[Itachi]

Here the revenue is shared as part of a group. Revenue is generated by playing others in the group. India may generate more by playing NZ but without playing NZ, there would be no revenue. India on it's own has no value, being part of the ICC and playing other nations in various tournaments gives it value.

Let's talk numbers. How would you proposed the sharing of the revenue?

More simplicity, let's say the revenue generated was $100. How would you divide this based upon which aspects?

 

[JaDed]

We have a country with high population with many more cities/towns interested in cricket and need of infrastructure ,pathetic from ICC to reduce it to that level.

Not sure how is this fair,that's a huge cut!

 

[aloo paratha]

So lets say, the elder son, who brings more money to the table, should get more cut (to increase all others share) because he earns more while the incompetent Brothers stays at home and eating off their share which in turn came from him.

ICC is putting itself in unfavorable position by going with this.

Last time, it did the same, BCCI out thrown ECB and CA. this time, it'll be uglier.

Your mother or father most likely provided for you when you were growing up. You were incapable of living on your own. They guided you through life. Earned money for you, so you could become what you are today.

The moment we just think about helping others instead of constantly being concerned about ourselves, we can all move on.

 

[Swanny]

Is ICC revenue share a major source of income for boards like BCCI. I was thinking whether BCCI can just allow more pvt investors. Maybe Indian players would be wearing jerseys littered with investors logos & India & BCCI logo somewhere in the corner

 

[aloo paratha]

How is it fair that BCCI's share gets reduced from near 20% to 10% while ECBs is reduced only from 6% to 5% and CA's stays the same?

You expect them to cut half of Zimbabwe's revenue for Ireland and Afghanistan?

Make the rich richer? The poor poorer?

 

[blackanhyellow]

The money is a side issue.

The real issue is the power in world cricket.

I am telling you now, if other cricket boards let BCCI dictate terms the future for cricket will be bleak.

There will be a 4 month IPL window. Every country's star players would become t20 mercenaries searching for an IPL contract over their country because of the major money. Cricket will become even more politicized, with BCCI only playing against countries that India has a good political relationship with, as a means to punish other nations who does not get a long with India.

There might even be a day when India decides, hey because we bring in 50% of the revenue, every world cup has to be hosted in India.

 

[JaDed]

You expect them to cut half of Zimbabwe's revenue for Ireland and Afghanistan?

Make the rich richer? The poor poorer?

Rich Board not equivalent to a rich country,meaning more resources are required to make cricket infrastructure reach places and players need to be paid well so the sport remains attractive and no.1 in India.

 

[Balthazar]

You missed the point again. Stop thinking about the rich boards like BCCI and ECB and think about the lower teams like the one mentioned.

Cricket is not a game just for the elites, it has to be grown among new teams.

Teams like Ireland need the cash so they can compete in the future. Now how they use the cash and use it appropriately only time will tell but the 2014 deal was such a bad deal for these lower teams I can't believe there are still people defending it.

I agree that lower teams should get some kind of financial support, but why is there a increase in the funds given to Pakistan out of BCCIs pocket. Shouldn't you guys be giving some part of your money to associate teams.

 

[R0H1T]

The money is a side issue.

The real issue is the power in world cricket.

I am telling you now, if other cricket boards let BCCI dictate terms the future for cricket will be bleak.

There will be a 4 month IPL window. Every country's star players would become t20 mercenaries searching for an IPL contract over their country because of the major money. Cricket will become even more politicized, with BCCI only playing against countries that India has a good political relationship with, as a means to punish other nations who does not get a long with India.

There might even be a day when India decides, hey because we bring in 50% of the revenue, every world cup has to be hosted in India.

The IPL will always have an unofficial window, whatever you believe or any other PPer doesn't matter. You know why, because the member boards get a cut from player fees directly from BCCI, no other league like BBL, CPL or whatever does this! Then there's the serial moaners the ECB, even they have allowed some half a dozen main players to play this year's IPL, no reason why we should pick them serial whingers though. Then there's the matter of freelance cricketers, if your board can't pay them much then sure as hell they can't stop them from participating in IPL, ICC doesn't even have the power over other such leagues let alone BCCI.

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

That entire revenue calculation of $2.5bn is based on assumptions of major returns from the Indian market. If the Indian market isn't participating as enthusiastically, that figure of $2.5bn can easily go down by 50-60%. God forbid if that happens, who stands to lose out more - BCCI or weaker boards?

BCCI is losing money in any case, what if it decides to bring down the whole structure with itself?

I don't see the new BCCI administrators accepting these ICC's diktats. There will have to be a compromise.

 

[ask_analyse_act]

If India is earning more money, then they can run a board parallel to ICC..

Under Big 3 the breakage was

BCCI - 50%
ECB - 15% CA - 10%

the remaining 25 is being shared by remaining 6 boards and nothing to AFG and IRE..

Which was totally unfair not promoting cricket....

Post BIG 3 looks decent.. Gradually need to pluck more from BCCI...

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

If India is earning more money, then they can run a board parallel to ICC..

Under Big 3 the breakage was

BCCI - 50%
ECB - 15% CA - 10%

the remaining 25 is being shared by remaining 6 boards and nothing to AFG and IRE..

Which was totally unfair not promoting cricket....

Post BIG 3 looks decent.. Gradually need to pluck more from BCCI...

BCCI moves out or messes up the international calendar, funds dry up, then you do what?

 

[Cricfan4eva]

So BCCI's share is cut by almost half while ECB loses 1 percent and CA loses nothing and this is based on equity and people will say has no racial connotations.

You can't look at it that way. Obviously BCCI has to do away with a larger chunk because they make the most. In this case I don't think they were dealt unfairly.

Despite being the major force that we are in world cricket it is our responsibility to see that game grows. Because the more the game grows better it is for BCCI as well.

 

[HitWicket]

So BCCI's share is cut by almost half while ECB loses 1 percent and CA loses nothing and this is based on equity and people will say has no racial connotations.

Love how you've had to use 2 different ways of representing the loss from each of the 2 countries to mislead people and excagerate your point.

This isnt premier league.There all money earned by clubs ultimately go into English Football.Here there are separate countries.Secondly can any EPL club claim to be responsible for more than 50% of the money generated?

So kind of like European football, where I believe the broadcasting rights money also gets evenly split between every country evenly?

 

[R0H1T]

You can't look at it that way. Obviously BCCI has to do away with a larger chunk because they make the most. In this case I don't think they were dealt unfairly.

Despite being the major force that we are in world cricket it is our responsibility to see that game grows. Because the more the game grows better it is for BCCI as well.

So if we're seeing BCCI take a ~30 percent cut, or whatever, & ECB take a negligible hit with CA getting the same amount, does that mean ECB/CA are bringing more money to the (ICC) table than 3yrs back? If not it's clearly unfair to take BCCI for a ride, the ECB & CA must take greater cuts & that can then be distributed evenly across every other member that the ICC pays.

 

[Mamoon]

My reading of the situation is that BCCI is getting punished for being more successful than others. I wonder what stopped others from mimicking their success?

They weren't much better than the PCB of today back in the 90's, but they worked hard to get to the top and now are being punished because they are simply much better than the other useless and unintelligent boards.

Quite a sorry situation.

 

[TalhaSyed]

How is it fair that BCCI's share gets reduced from near 20% to 10% while ECBs is reduced only from 6% to 5% and CA's stays the same?

The whole idea of this deal is for there to be a more balanced spread of the revenues across all the teams whilst India will still be earning more than double what all the other teams are earning - and rightly so.

Meanwhile, ECB are also earning marginally more than the other teams which IMO is also fair.

If CA's revenues were reduced any further they would be earning less than the other teams which IMO would be quite unfair.

What would you suggest? India got reduced from 20% to 10% so ECB should have gotten reduced from 6% to 3% and CA from 5% to 2.5%?

The bottom line is - sure BCCI make more money than everyone else and they are getting a reward for that by earning more than double the other teams. Now you can argue about whether this is enough - given how much they contribute - until the cows come home, however, there is no denying that for the cricketing world as a whole this is definitely a much better spread of money and will hopefully help the sport grow globally.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Love how you've had to use 2 different ways of representing the loss from each of the 2 countries to mislead people and excagerate your point.



So kind of like European football, where I believe the broadcasting rights money also gets evenly split between every country evenly?

Exaggerate?Really?

BCCI was earning 3 times of ECB in the previous calculation,while now they are earning only twice of ECB.So basically the BCCI's revenue has been reduced from 445 to 250mn a reduction of 41%

While ECB's revenue has been reduced from 150 to 125mn a reduction of 16%.

This is exaggeration.Right.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

What does this ICC revenue refer to?

ICC tournament revenues?

Or includes all format bilateral revenues too?

 

[Thomaskutty]

Elected officials will always have to promise more money to their voters. If ICC can get this approved before the new BCCI elections are held , they will heave a sigh of relief.
I have no doubt the court proxy Limaye will vote for this new deal.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The whole idea of this deal is for there to be a more balanced spread of the revenues across all the teams whilst India will still be earning more than double what all the other teams are earning - and rightly so.

Meanwhile, ECB are also earning marginally more than the other teams which IMO is also fair.

If CA's revenues were reduced any further they would be earning less than the other teams which IMO would be quite unfair.

What would you suggest? India got reduced from 20% to 10% so ECB should have gotten reduced from 6% to 3% and CA from 5% to 2.5%?

The bottom line is - sure BCCI make more money than everyone else and they are getting a reward for that by earning more than double the other teams. Now you can argue about whether this is enough - given how much they contribute - until the cows come home, however, there is no denying that for the cricketing world as a whole this is definitely a much better spread of money and will hopefully help the sport grow globally.

BCCI was earning 3 times of ECB in the previous calculation,while now they are earning only twice of ECB.So basically the BCCI's revenue has been reduced from 445 to 250mn a reduction of 41%

While ECB's revenue has been reduced from 150 to 125mn a reduction of 16%.

This is a better spread of revenue.Right?

 

[cricketjoshila]

What does this ICC revenue refer to?

ICC tournament revenues?

Or includes all format bilateral revenues too?

Why will ICC get any revenue from Bilateral format?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Elected officials will always have to promise more money to their voters. If ICC can get this approved before the new BCCI elections are held , they will heave a sigh of relief.
I have no doubt the court proxy Limaye will vote for this new deal.

Limaye has already voted againist it.

If he votes for this he can be later prosecuted for causing BCCI losses.

 

[JaDed]

You can't look at it that way. Obviously BCCI has to do away with a larger chunk because they make the most. In this case I don't think they were dealt unfairly.

Despite being the major force that we are in world cricket it is our responsibility to see that game grows. Because the more the game grows better it is for BCCI as well.

Dalmiya tried hard to first bring wc to South Asia, second to get Bangladesh test status bu have you seen them be thankful for anything?

Plus why does everyone keep ignoring that India is not as rich as England or Australia ,our per capita income is much less and we have a higher population which is Interested in the game and they are being dealt unfairly here as BCCI not only has to keep the game popular but take care of a huge chunk players and ex players,finally cricket was reaching many parts of our country,ex players getting paid and now this.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Dalmiya tried hard to first bring wc to South Asia, second to get Bangladesh test status bu have you seen them be thankful for anything?

Plus why does everyone keep ignoring that India is not as rich as England or Australia ,our per capita income is much less and we have a higher population which is Interested in the game and they are being dealt unfairly here as BCCI not only has to keep the game popular but take care of a huge chunk players and ex players,finally cricket was reaching many parts of our country,ex players getting paid and now this.

Thankful?People here have no idea how ECB acted when Asia won the right to host the 1996 WC.Colin Cowdrey the then ICC President refused to let the matter come to vote unless ECB got the rights to 1999 WC.This is the kind of things ECB with the help of CA in ICC.

 

[JaDed]

Lets look at it this way, we have a population of 1.2-1.3 billion almost 10 times (safely)more than England and Australia yet we are only getting double their revenue?
Since all were making socialist remarks how about this scenario? How is this fair?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lets look at it this way, we have a population of 1.2-1.3 billion almost 10 times (safely)more than England and Australia yet we are only getting double their revenue?
Since all were making socialist remarks how about this scenario? How is this fair?

Leave the population.Thats not ICCs problem.Look at my post no.49

 

[R0H1T]

The whole idea of this deal is for there to be a more balanced spread of the revenues across all the teams whilst India will still be earning more than double what all the other teams are earning - and rightly so.

Meanwhile, ECB are also earning marginally more than the other teams which IMO is also fair.

If CA's revenues were reduced any further they would be earning less than the other teams which IMO would be quite unfair.

What would you suggest? India got reduced from 20% to 10% so ECB should have gotten reduced from 6% to 3% and CA from 5% to 2.5%?

The bottom line is - sure BCCI make more money than everyone else and they are getting a reward for that by earning more than double the other teams. Now you can argue about whether this is enough - given how much they contribute - until the cows come home, however, there is no denying that for the cricketing world as a whole this is definitely a much better spread of money and will hopefully help the sport grow globally.

In your world not ours, perhaps the BCCI should start taking a cut from foreign players' fess that they pay to the home board, instead BCCI should take that money home. It makes absolutely no sense to pay any of these good for nothing "for profit" organizations, for what is essentially free money "from India with(out) love"

 

[R0H1T]

So apparently the ICC is gonna take a bigger cut now, this is the last piece that was missing in the jigsaw puzzle that (not?) everyone's too concerned about ~ http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1081733.html

Of course for the avg PPer & cricket fanatic who think the ICC can do no wrong & they're like the messiah that'll save this cricketing world ala mein drumpf

 

[TalhaSyed]

BCCI was earning 3 times of ECB in the previous calculation,while now they are earning only twice of ECB.So basically the BCCI's revenue has been reduced from 445 to 250mn a reduction of 41%

While ECB's revenue has been reduced from 150 to 125mn a reduction of 16%.

This is a better spread of revenue.Right?

Yes - the maths obvious and I can see that - however my question to you is, what do you recommend? Since the BCCI had a 41% reduction so should the ECB? And then what? CA and all the other boards have the same reduction and we end up in the same position as we were?

 

[ads101]

So BCCI gets 5 times the amount Afganistan or Ireland get. Doesn't look fair to me.

It seems a bit excessive cut.

Personally feel it would have been fairer to have
1. Ireland+Afghanistan= 40
2. Zimbabwe= 70
3. All countries bar England= 100
4. England = 110

This would free up 115 million which could be allocated to India, making it 370. So in essence all the big three having small cuts to their revenue, the rest having slight increases (with Ireland and Afghanistan big increases as they went from nothing).

Think most would have been happy with that. The reason why this cut has been so drastic, as an extra 10 mill (or more) to each country is not much individually for each country, but when all that money comes out of India's cut virtually, that's 100 mill cut from India's part.

 

[Thomaskutty]

Limaye has already voted againist it.

If he votes for this he can be later prosecuted for causing BCCI losses.

Have you read his detailed interview about revenue ? The feeling you get from him is that the old model wasn't fair and frankly I don't see him objecting to the new one.

 

[TalhaSyed]

In your world not ours, perhaps the BCCI should start taking a cut from foreign players' fess that they pay to the home board, instead BCCI should take that money home. It makes absolutely no sense to pay any of these good for nothing "for profit" organizations, for what is essentially free money "from India with(out) love"

So basically you want the money which the BCCI makes to stay with the BCCI/India and not to go to the ICC since the ICC will spend it on developing cricket in other parts of the world (theoretically speaking)?

 

[Thomaskutty]

Lets look at it this way, we have a population of 1.2-1.3 billion almost 10 times (safely)more than England and Australia yet we are only getting double their revenue?
Since all were making socialist remarks how about this scenario? How is this fair?

If we have a population argument though , then Pakistan would get ten times that of Australia. Pakistan would splurge all of the extra revenue on hiring , firing and re-hiring Miandad.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Have you read his detailed interview about revenue ? The feeling you get from him is that the old model wasn't fair and frankly I don't see him objecting to the new one.

I will take whatever Indian Express says with a pinch of salt.I read his interview just after the meeting in Dubai and he said that this new system doesnt make sense as it doesnt have any scientific reason behind it.

 

[R0H1T]

So basically you want the money which the BCCI makes to stay with the BCCI/India and not to go to the ICC since the ICC will spend it on developing cricket in other parts of the world (theoretically speaking)?

Is that what you got from my post? The money which comes from every avenue, to the ICC, should be distributed equally based on a fair equity share. What ads101 said sounds about right to me, also check the latest headlines from cricinfo, the one I linked in my last post.

If BCCI is taking a huge hit then why does it make sense for ECB/CA to go unscathed? The money not going to them can be given to other associates & help the likes of US, Kenya et al get back on their feet, & compete again (for Kenya) like they used to.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes - the maths obvious and I can see that - however my question to you is, what do you recommend? Since the BCCI had a 41% reduction so should the ECB? And then what? CA and all the other boards have the same reduction and we end up in the same position as we were?

The ratio of distribution should have remained the same.Its pretty obvious that ECB/CA with Manohar moved this proposal so that they keep their share of revenue and take BCCI's share and give it to the other boards and then cut BCCI to size.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It seems a bit excessive cut.

Personally feel it would have been fairer to have
1. Ireland+Afghanistan= 40
2. Zimbabwe= 70
3. All countries bar England= 100
4. England = 110

This would free up 115 million which could be allocated to India, making it 370. So in essence all the big three having small cuts to their revenue, the rest having slight increases (with Ireland and Afghanistan big increases as they went from nothing).

Think most would have been happy with that. The reason why this cut has been so drastic, as an extra 10 mill (or more) to each country is not much individually for each country, but when all that money comes out of India's cut virtually, that's 100 mill cut from India's part.

TBH BCCI had in a meeting in 2016 of which Manohar was a part decided that they would be happy with something near to 400mn.

 

[R0H1T]

TBH BCCI had in a meeting in 2016 of which Manohar was a part decided that they would be happy with something near to 400mn.

Manohar is a headless snake who's doing this just out of spite, otherwise how the hell can you explain putting out a green saming wicket for Aus in 2004 & now this, the ICC rejig is bad for India period

 

[cricketjoshila]

Manohar is a headless snake who's doing this just out of spite, otherwise how the hell can you explain putting out a green saming wicket for Aus in 2004 & now this, the ICC rejig is bad for India period

Naah.He is doing this to stay on as head of ICC for a long long time.

 

[TalhaSyed]

Is that what you got from my post? The money which comes from every avenue, to the ICC, should be distributed equally based on a fair equity share. What ads101 said sounds about right to me, also check the latest headlines from cricinfo, the one I linked in my last post.

If BCCI is taking a huge hit then why does it make sense for ECB/CA to go unscathed? The money not going to them can be given to other associates & help the likes of US, Kenya et al get back on their feet, & compete again (for Kenya) like they used to.

Sure - I agree with ads101's point and your point about money going to the likes of US, Kenya etc - and hopefully we do get to that stage.

However, for now, I think this is a step in the right direction and it's good to see Ireland and Afghanistan getting a fair bite at the cherry

 

[R0H1T]

Naah.He is doing this to stay on as head of ICC for a long long time.

By headless I meant without fangs, he's just using this opportunity to use ICC's shoulder & fire at home.

 

[TalhaSyed]

The ratio of distribution should have remained the same.Its pretty obvious that ECB/CA with Manohar moved this proposal so that they keep their share of revenue and take BCCI's share and give it to the other boards and then cut BCCI to size.

But if BCCI's share was cut down, however the ratio of distribution was kept the same amongst all the boards we would end up in the same position as we were, just with the ICC keeping a lot more money for themselves?

 

[cricketjoshila]

But if BCCI's share was cut down, however the ratio of distribution was kept the same amongst all the boards we would end up in the same position as we were, just with the ICC keeping a lot more money for themselves?

Get more money into the test fund.Distribute that equally to all members.Sponsor a universal DRS. Increase the Prize money for annual Test Mace winner and the ICC tournaments.Set up a medical fund for test match players from poor countries.So many ways the ICC can bring down the costs of its member countries.

 

[R0H1T]

Get more money into the test fund.Distribute that equally to all members.Sponsor a universal DRS. Increase the Prize money for annual Test Mace winner and the ICC tournaments.Set up a medical fund for test match players from poor countries.So many ways the ICC can bring down the costs of its member countries.

There is no test fund after this rejig, just so you know.

 

[90MPH]

My reading of the situation is that BCCI is getting punished for being more successful than others. I wonder what stopped others from mimicking their success?

They weren't much better than the PCB of today back in the 90's, but they worked hard to get to the top and now are being punished because they are simply much better than the other useless and unintelligent boards.

Quite a sorry situation.

Yes it's successful but you left out one of the main reasons being a large population so which thus big companies are willing to pay big money to advertise their products on the networks because they know a significant part of the population will see it.

That's the main reason for it, and especially during a World Cup they get the most significant money.

Good for them but it's not a business where 1 gets all. It's international sports and you are part of a club system that works differently.

No the sorry situation is the hopeless ICC that gave in to more power to the BCCI In 2014 so it could grab even more control. Now finally they had someone (Mahnoor) to wrestle it back and at least have a fairer system for all but one that still gives enough of that advertising money for the BCCI more than rich enough.

Keep those crocodile tears for the BCCI to yourself.

 

[90MPH]

I agree that lower teams should get some kind of financial support, but why is there a increase in the funds given to Pakistan out of BCCIs pocket. Shouldn't you guys be giving some part of your money to associate teams.

It's not just Pakistan Einstein, it's a few other teams as well like SA.

Look at the 2014 model, it was not Pakistan that were taking a big chunk out of the associates.

The BCCI wanted more and one way was to decimate it from the associates.

It's the BCCI that Made the deal not Pakistan so point the finger back at home whatever your 6th sense says It's Pakistan's fault.

But it's probably too late for you.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Lol at ECB and CA talking about the principle of equity. Did they keep this principle in mind back in the 80's etc.? There's nothing fair about this new distribution model. Basically, ICC are cheating BCCI of what's rightfully theirs so that CA and ECB can keep BCCI in check. Only a blind bat can ignore that completely.

 

[JaDed]

Yes it's successful but you left out one of the main reasons being a large population so which thus big companies are willing to pay big money to advertise their products on the networks because they know a significant part of the population will see it.

That's the main reason for it, and especially during a World Cup they get the most significant money.

Good for them but it's not a business where 1 gets all. It's international sports and you are part of a club system that works differently.

No the sorry situation is the hopeless ICC that gave in to more power to the BCCI In 2014 so it could grab even more control. Now finally they had someone (Mahnoor) to wrestle it back and at least have a fairer system for all but one that still gives enough of that advertising money for the BCCI more than rich enough.

Keep those crocodile tears for the BCCI to yourself.

Oh wait so this population logic works in advertising but when BCCI has to make the sport reach corners of the country ,set up infrasturcture then it doesn't hold up and we should take a cut??

 

[JaDed]

If we have a population argument though , then Pakistan would get ten times that of Australia. Pakistan would splurge all of the extra revenue on hiring , firing and re-hiring Miandad.

Saying that for all those "socialist" comments where they need to share and what not.

 

[90MPH]

Oh wait so this population logic works in advertising but when BCCI has to make the sport reach corners of the country ,set up infrasturcture then it doesn't hold up and we should take a cut??

I will say it again, stop just looking it through the beloved eyes of the BCCI and getting so emotional as if one of Indias great institutions has been shamed. It's just a damn cricket board. I have criticise the PCB umpteen times especially their incompetence and corruption.

Just Think about the game of cricket in general as well. How was the 2014 deal good for cricket and in any way fair, especially for lower teams ??

The ICC was a complete and utter joke that was bowing down to the demands of the BCCI and to a lesser extent the ECB and CA.

Show me one other sport that has control in this way ?? Even in football despite its problems with FIFA you don't see one country calling the shots.

It's ridiculous there are still those defending one of the most ludrucous deals in the history of sport.

 

[zn426]

Look, the BCCI does not make any friends with it's approach. But I don't expect them to.

Cricket is no longer an Aussie/British sport. It's a subcontinental sport. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka are vastly more popular teams than the English/British. It's popular in the West Indies too, but West Indies doesn't have the economy or population base to support cricket at the level that the subcontinental countries do.

Long term, especially with the improvement in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi economies, you will see that the revenue spreads are going to favor PCB and BCB making $200M plus per year, especially when Pakistan starts playing in Pakistan again (no idea when that will be). The real question is whether the revenue will be used properly like India has to develop the game, ensure that NCA and domestics are given the proper funding to teach players correctly, etc.