Where are you pulling all these percentages from?
According to what I can see this is the percentage breakdown with the $400 mil offer which is still on the table.
Not to mention BCCI could have most likely walked away with $445 mil in the first place if they weren't so damn greedy which btw would have taken their share to 26%.
So in a nut shell you think BCCI can boycott the ICC, without the ICC fighting back in anyway.
Good one
Once again showing your comically delusional support for the BCCI
In other news, cricket fans in India don't give two hoots about non (IPL) followers in other nations ~
Right & the one giving handouts is the ICC just because?
Because the answer doesn't suit your narrative?
Here - I'll help you. Here is the text book definition of "boycott". You can even google "boycott definition" and see what you get:
So now - are BCCI boycotting the ICC events or not?
To be honest the fact that you cant answer the question says it all - but it's just fun to see you get yourself tangled up in awkward situations which expose you and your blatantly BCCI biased opinions
Because the answer doesn't suit your narrative?
Here - I'll help you. Here is the text book definition of "boycott". You can even google "boycott definition" and see what you get:
So now - are BCCI boycotting the ICC events or not?
To be honest the fact that you cant answer the question says it all - but it's just fun to see you get yourself tangled up in awkward situations which expose you and your blatantly BCCI biased opinions
Owned
[MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]
Are you absolutely sure that BCCI is not boycotting the ICC event?
ah ok - that was before.
It was a boycott when that suited your narrative but now you've read a document and it doesn't suit your narrative so it's not a boycott
You remind me a the cliche slimy politician who talk a lot and say very little, whilst dodging and diving questions, and changing the 'facts' to suit their narrative whilst looking like a clown to the audience
The fact that you think BCCI can boycott the CT and not face any sort of reprecautions is just delusion at its best and shows how biased and brain washed your opinion is.
This is the percentage breakdown with the $400 mil offer which is still on the table.
Not to mention BCCI could have most likely walked away with $445 mil in the first place if they weren't so damn greedy which btw would have taken their share to 26%.
And a crap ton of BS flung around by the other 3 quarters of members. So tell me how much does England or Australia contribute to global events like the ICC CT or WT20 & WC, in terms of $ spent on procuring broadcast rights or $ spend by advertisers & sponsors? Now go back to marquee events starting with the Reliance WC in 1987, Wills in 1996 or any number of recent events where LG, Reliance et al were lead sponsors. Where does this money come from, let me guess the tea/poppy plantations in any number of our neighboring countries?
Sky doesn't have enough $ left after the EPL, they're also not competing with STAR (or Fox) since they wouldn't wanna start a bidding war with their own sister concern, all 3 are owned by Newscorp at least that should be common knowledge.
Sky doesn't have enough $ left after the EPL, they're also not competing with STAR (or Fox) since they wouldn't wanna start a bidding war with their own sister concern, all 3 are owned by Newscorp at least that should be common knowledge.
Espn left cricket (broadcast) after they divested their stake in ESPN Star to STAR India, now they've come back with Sony to from a JV & possibly bid for the next IPL rights. They're mainly here for the Indian market, like previously, & won't go bid for global events. India is a guaranteed revenue stream for any broadcaster, this is why Sony & ESPN are betting big(ger) on India. As for global events, without India you can imagine what their plight might be. Also the next IPL could fetch anywhere between $2~5 billion for 10 years, that's my guesstimate but you can always quote me to say I'm wrong, if I'm wrong next year
Tbh C9 or Supersport don't have the $ to bid for an ICC 8 year rights cycle. It simply is too expensive for any broadcaster outside of the top American media conglomerates, Disney (ESPN's owner) being the largest one.
Why is this relevant to what you were pointing out? The cricketers generate major revenues for CA, they ought to have biggest pie, the same goes for BCCI at the ICC.
You know what I brought up, it's simple if you understand simple maths. The IPL franchises don't contribute anything extra to the IPL revenues, they do have variable expenses though, hence they get the same chunk of pie.
WTH are you talking about, do you even know how the revenue model works for the IPL? Lemme guess, NO.
And that has nothing to do with bringing more $ to the IPL table, you're telling me a higher TRP match will results in more $ outflows from Sony, to the BCCI or does the advertiser pays more (to Sony) because people love MI instead of GL?
The rights were paid for 10yrs back around 07/08 but there might have been a clause that there'd be a minimum of 8 teams (or 50 odd games?) so that Sony could get its ROI. Once the dotted line was signed & Sony paid $ there's no way BCCI could walk away from such terms, that's not even up for debate.
By the same token they're being offered 23% of the proceeds, explain that, I bet you can?
This was already explained above, the ICC is paid by Indian broadcaster, who's backed almost entirely by Indian money. Take India out & see either or both of them burn like a candle.
I've got nothing more to add to your circular arguments, you've been answered by multiple posters, that should be enough!
people who are full of garbage and a false sense of bravodo & need to be monitored at all times to ensure they don't go and do something stupid
