BCCI loses vote in ICC revenue and constitutional changes

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Heard it in 2009 that IPL will die without Pak players.what happened?

IPL will not die because you wish it to.

lol you are such a delusional guy. IPL will die without ICC's backing and international players.

 

[TalhaSyed]

If even giving 20% to India is such a big issue i am sure ICC believes India's withdrawl will not reduce revenues by more than 10%(The amount on offer now).So all should be happy.

Ok....

And whats that got to do with my statement which you quoted saying that "some of our padosis are 'too patriotic' to accept this and think that Indian cricket doesn't need ICC's backing, and in some cases, doesn't even need the ICC's members backing"?

Were you just re-iterating the fact that you are too patriotic to accept the fact?

 

[super hitter]

Heard it in 2009 that IPL will die without Pak players.what happened?

IPL will not die because you wish it to.

The difference between players and leagues is quite obvious

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

As per Times of India, BCCI lost the voting by 1-9 margin, when revised their offer to win support, they lost by 2-8 margin, amazing, isolated.

BCCI is going to teach a lesson to those 8 cricket boards and then the real fun will begin.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So cricketjoshila = all indian cricket fans? I was telling that to you. From where did all indian fans come? Are you the spokesperson for all indian fans here? It seems this has become your pet dialogue in this thread 'don't tell this to indian fans blah blah'.

Dont tell me who is whose baap.Its your opinion and dont extrapolate it to me.

You claimed that "Honest Indian Fans" will not support pull out of CT.When did you become the judge of honesty or what should Indian fans do?Are you the spokesperson of Indian fans here?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Ok....

And whats that got to do with my statement which you quoted saying that "some of our padosis are 'too patriotic' to accept this and think that Indian cricket doesn't need ICC's backing, and in some cases, doesn't even need the ICC's members backing"?

Were you just re-iterating the fact that you are too patriotic to accept the fact?

Are you sure that ICC members will boycott India?Or ICC will an India?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Dont tell me who is whose baap.Its your opinion and dont extrapolate it to me.

You claimed that "Honest Indian Fans" will not support pull out of CT.When did you become the judge of honesty or what should Indian fans do?Are you the spokesperson of Indian fans here?

Bhai are you a VIP member of PakPassion? You can say whatever you want but others should shut their mouth and nod their head when you say something. It is obvious who is the spokesperson of BCCI here.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Bhai are you a VIP member of PakPassion? You can say whatever you want but others should shut their mouth and nod their head when you say something. It is obvious who is the spokesperson of BCCI here.

I speak only for myself.I dont speak for BCCI or Indian fans.I dont tell which fan is honest who is not.Seems you want people to follow what you think is rght.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

I speak only for myself.I dont speak for BCCI or Indian fans.I dont tell which fan is honest who is not.Seems you want people to follow what you think is rght.

I don't force people to agree with my opinion and don't call them traitors for not agreeing with my opinion here. I concentrate on the topic at hand while some of you concentrate why I am not agreeing with your opinion. You need to increase your tolerance level.

 

[TalhaSyed]

Are you sure that ICC members will boycott India?Or ICC will an India?

Did I say I was?

It's like me asking you "are you sure BCCI will boycott the CT" even though you havent said that.

Meanwhile, instead of responding to the post you quote, you continue to spew your usual garbage.

Whats that got to do with my statement which you quoted saying that "some of our padosis are 'too patriotic' to accept this and think that Indian cricket doesn't need ICC's backing, and in some cases, doesn't even need the ICC's members backing"?

 

[JattMaula]

Currently ICC is BCCI's father and in our culture we respect our father.

Really?

 

[Pantani]

Next you will say we were better off under the empire.

All this empire talk from you in this thread when I go back to India and go to the shops, go to a restaurant, go wherever; I notice how white tourists and immigrants receive such preferential special treatment. Meanwhile because my skin is brown and I am ethnically Indian, shopkeepers, restauranteurs, taxi drivers, everyone and his dog; treat me like I am second class.

India has a race problem, and Indian nationalists like yourself ignore it all the time. I'll accept your empire rhetoric the day Indians stop lynching Nigerian students.

 

[Specialisttailender]

So why is Manohar keen on making things difficult for BCCI ? Does he has any grudge ?

 

[Bilal7]

Bigger question is whether ICC would be able to survive for two years?

Would the broadcaster be willing to pay them the same amount without the assurance of eye balls from India or would it negotiate a price cut?

I think one CT without Indian team would give us the picture on where the bcci and ICC stand.

Indians will still be watching ICC tournaments even if India is not participating. The question is whether they will keep flocking to see Sharmas bowl at Sharmas in the IPL.

The PCB has survived without India, the rest of the cricket boards will survive too. The BCCI surviving on its own is highly unlikely and being boycotted by the cricketing world for an year or two will bring them to their knees.

 

[Amir]

Its funny. BCCI came to the meeting. Told everyone this is how it is. Didn't take Manohar's offer. Thought people would vote their way in fear and in the end, got blindsided by their own arrogance.

This deal will likely unhold as BCCI will cry. But it be great if they pull out. Convert IPL full time and then watch their own fan base turn on the bureaucratic losers for taking their beloved game away.

Indian fans support India. Not India A or India B or India North South West or whatever.

 

[Bilal7]

So why is Manohar keen on making things difficult for BCCI ? Does he has any grudge ?

This is because not every Indian is a BCCI lackey focused solely on the triumph of the BCCI. Some of them also care about cricket and know that the BCCI is tyrannical and must be stopped.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Its funny. BCCI came to the meeting. Told everyone this is how it is. Didn't take Manohar's offer. Thought people would vote their way in fear and in the end, got blindsided by their own arrogance.

This deal will likely unhold as BCCI will cry. But it be great if they pull out. Convert IPL full time and then watch their own fan base turn on the bureaucratic losers for taking their beloved game away.

Indian fans support India. Not India A or India B or India North South West or whatever.

Yes Indian fans support India not ICC or other boards or their teams.

 

[tomato]

ICC still begging BCCI to take extra $100 million

 

[Balthazar]

Lets teach each and everyone a lesson. Why single out Bangladesh Cricket Board only?

We need to start somewhere right. If they can't back us in this crisis situation, they shouldn't expect the same thing from. India shouldn't have backed them up by opposing to two-tier system.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Really?

So BCCI doesn't come under ICC?

 

[cricketjoshila]

ICC still begging BCCI to take extra $100 million

Its highly unlikely that bcci will agree for anything below $445mn.

 

[IMMY69]

Yes Indian fans support India not ICC or other boards or their teams.

"India fans supporting India and not ICC" is exactly the problem.

It amazes me how you and other Indians just can't see it.

 

[tomato]

"India fans supporting India and not ICC" is exactly the problem.

It amazes me how you and other Indians just can't see it.

Why should a Indian fan support others over India? We spend our hard earned money to support our own team other comes next.

 

[tomato]

Its highly unlikely that bcci will agree for anything below $445mn.

Plus one more month window for IPL.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Plus one more month window for IPL.

Window for a domestic tournament?

 

[IMMY69]

Why should a Indian fan support others over India? We spend our hard earned money to support our own team other comes next.

Because the ICC is the governing body!

Jesus man you really don't care about cricket at all do you.

 

[tomato]

Because the ICC is the governing body!

Jesus man you really don't care about cricket at all do you.

LoL no football fan cares for FIFA , governing bodies are not my concern Country comes first. Obviously for you ICC comes before PCB.

 

[tomato]

Window for a domestic tournament?

This will be good for ICC only.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Because the ICC is the governing body!

Jesus man you really don't care about cricket at all do you.

Cricket is a sport but they are viewing it as a business.

 

[tomato]

Cricket is a sport but they are viewing it as a business.

Then what is the problem for other boards letting BCCI gets what they want and take some cuts themselves for uphelding the sports?

 

[Zak_Fan]

Cricket is a sport but they are viewing it as a business.

How else do you think a matter of billions being distributed be seen? Every board involved is viewing it as a business, and Indian fans are behind Indian businessmen because it concerns Cricket in India.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

How else do you think a matter of billions being distributed be seen? Every board involved is viewing it as a business, and Indian fans are behind Indian businessmen because it concerns Cricket in India.

How are you going to support Indian businessmen then? What are your plans if ICC doesn't agree to give BCCI what they want? Are you ready to boycott Champions Trophy?

 

[aloo paratha]

Why should a Indian fan support others over India? We spend our hard earned money to support our own team other comes next.

Your board didn't work hard for 1billion+ people in the country who watch the sport they were given the people

 

[Snak3eye5]

How are you going to support Indian businessmen then? What are your plans if ICC doesn't agree to give BCCI what they want? Are you ready to boycott Champions Trophy?

Indian/Bcci needed this dose of medicine. I hope all of icc and all countries just isolate India and then we'll see how they will come crying back to all countries to play them. Also i prtty sure this this is a bcci stunt where they want to pull out of champions because they know they're now a team with age old hacks and 40 year olds and wouldn't be able to win a single game there. Wish they would play so we could see the thrashing they would get by teams they play against...Would be the final nail in the coffin of the Indian team,...

 

[Zak_Fan]

Your board didn't work hard for 1billion+ people in the country who watch the sport they were given the people

Pakistan has 1/6th of India's population. Let's compare what PCB did with it.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Indian/Bcci needed this dose of medicine. I hope all of icc and all countries just isolate India and then we'll see how they will come crying back to all countries to play them. Also i prtty sure this this is a bcci stunt where they want to pull out of champions because they know they're now a team with age old hacks and 40 year olds and wouldn't be able to win a single game there. Wish they would play so we could see the thrashing they would get by teams they play against...Would be the final nail in the coffin of the Indian team,...

Now that you have said it I can see India participating and winning the champions trophy again.

 

[Zak_Fan]

How are you going to support Indian businessmen then? What are your plans if ICC doesn't agree to give BCCI what they want? Are you ready to boycott Champions Trophy?

The ones with plans are representing BCCI. As fans, we can pick a side, and Indian fans are on a side that concerns Indian Cricket. Any of this comes as a surprise to you?

 

[IAJ]

Indian/Bcci needed this dose of medicine. I hope all of icc and all countries just isolate India and then we'll see how they will come crying back to all countries to play them. Also i prtty sure this this is a bcci stunt where they want to pull out of champions because they know they're now a team with age old hacks and 40 year olds and wouldn't be able to win a single game there. Wish they would play so we could see the thrashing they would get by teams they play against...Would be the final nail in the coffin of the Indian team,...

Lol easy man.

 

[bleaf27]

Yeah well you shouldn't have got in bed with CA/ECB, first chance they get will stab you in the back; it was better to stick with your asian brothers! Big 3 Ind, Pak and SL! maybe we'd have made a bit of room for the younger one as well

Well the Asian group never were run and gun together. SLC and BD boards will never be able to stand up and with India and Pak relations always determining cricketing relations - their alliance is always on the wire. so there are two choices - either ECB and CA run the show and depend on their mercy ? Isn't that how colonization worked - let them handle the management - we will just work.
BCCI due to sheer number and money game - especially since being backed by the Indian Investors -IPL was worth 4.5 billion. So anyways , BCCI made it to the top 3 - ECB and CA weren't happy with it - they did not let BCCI in happily to be friends forever , It was always a tug of war amongst them with BCCI the only strong player to represent the Asian block.
The current ICC proposal still gives BCCI 293 + 100 million ? while other boards get 132 mil and ECB 143.
So BCCI is still making but this isn't purely financial, this is also about giving control back to ECB and CA - which I think whether it's cricket , any other sport , your employment - any sector isn't right.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

The ones with plans are representing BCCI. As fans, we can pick a side, and Indian fans are on a side that concerns Indian Cricket. Any of this comes as a surprise to you?

Have you asked every indian fan first before coming to this conclusion?

 

[tomato]

Your board didn't work hard for 1billion+ people in the country who watch the sport they were given the people

Lol what a random comment. BCCI trying to get maximum vallue for its contribution and spend most of the amount on Cricket infrastructure in country. Obviously this is alien to you guys as PCB does nothing like this

 

[bleaf27]

OK. Easy way to prove this theory. Lets see if BCCI goes it alone now that its been kicked out. BCCI has been threatening other boards with this for the past few years. ICC has called its bluff and thrown BCCI a challange.

Lets see if BCCI has the balls to go it alone. Im betting it doesnt. It was always a hollow threat. And all the other boards knew it. Thats why they all ganged up against it. Now BCCI has no option but to be humiliated and accept what ICC gives it. CA and ECB have played a master stroke and im sure you know it as well.

I'd like to point couple things. When you go on a negotiation table - what do you do ? You put your terms let's say I say I want 500 mil. , you offer me 100 mil - we go back and forth - talks go off , we talk about strike / boycott - negotiations end. Compromise is made at 250-300 mil - midway as well.
Right now ICC is offering BCCI 293 +100 mil. , other boards are getting only 132 mil.

Secondly, whether BCCI takes a stand now or later - it depends on them when the right time is. If BCCI decide to accept it for now,they are still making 3 times more than other boards. If they do not, they still have the support to take a stand.

My focus isn't on the ECB and CA masterstroke - forgot colonization by the British Empire ? Wasn't that enough to marvel at their master strokes ? If PCB is quite content to work under ECB and CA that is good for you, if BCCI isn't - they will try to get every penny and every inch of power .

 

[Zak_Fan]

Have you asked every indian fan first before coming to this conclusion?

Can't you see it for yourself? Who do you think majority support?

 

[aloo paratha]

Lol what a random comment. BCCI trying to get maximum vallue for its contribution and spend most of the amount on Cricket infrastructure in country. Obviously this is alien to you guys as PCB does nothing like this

What's BCCIs contribution? it's not the BCCI administrators who had 1 billion babies so they can all watch cricket on TV. Also the comment is not random, the post was talking about India's "hard work".

 

[aloo paratha]

Can't you see it for yourself? Who do you think majority support?

Majority of cricket boards, actually all of them except you support this system yet you still find a way to cry.

 

[bleaf27]

Indians will still be watching ICC tournaments even if India is not participating. The question is whether they will keep flocking to see Sharmas bowl at Sharmas in the IPL.

The PCB has survived without India, the rest of the cricket boards will survive too. The BCCI surviving on its own is highly unlikely and being boycotted by the cricketing world for an year or two will bring them to their knees.

Well firstly ICC cannot block other members to participate with BCCI if they chose to. Your premise of BCCI being blocked by other boards for ICC ? really ? ICC doesn't have that much clout you realize that right ? if ICC cannot force BCCI to tour Pak , if it could not force bangladesh to tour Pak or WI to quit tours mid way - It's ability to enforce is limited.
Secondly, BCCI ofcourse needs international players - if those players get paid - why would they not participate with BCCI - how can ICC stop them ?

 

[tomato]

What's BCCIs contribution? it's not the BCCI administrators who had 1 billion babies so they can all watch cricket on TV. Also the comment is not random, the post was talking about India's "hard work".

More random stuff. Who created IPL? PCB?

 

[tomato]

Majority of cricket boards, actually all of them except you support this system yet you still find a way to cry.

Because they get more money for less contribution obviously even i will take such offer.

 

[jagatk]

Thought we already covered this is another thread but India exiting an ICC tournament like the WC in 2007 didn't really affect the icc financially, the financial impact would of been on Star, an Indian company.

You are taking the short route my friend, india exiting worldcup hurt the nos big time, india pulling out of CT most likely will not hurt ICC monetarily but it is not a one off tournament, Star or whoever bids for icc events next time will do so on premise that it has a chance to grab a billion eyeballs with this, if that is not on table they won't bid big, it hurts icc in long run which is why icc changed the world cup 11 format, the broadcaster controls the keys to the coffers and if he does not get what he wants the money flow stops.

 

[Zak_Fan]

Majority of cricket boards, actually all of them except you support this system yet you still find a way to cry.

See post 606. Once you answer that, I might tell you that BVB and my conversation has a context that you failed to grasp.

 

[aloo paratha]

More random stuff. Who created IPL? PCB?

This revenue share does not Include IPL... That's separate........ This is just what's made odd ICC world tournaments.

 

[bleaf27]

If the ICC pools all revenue in a Minus India world, and contracts all international players centrally itself along the Australian domestic sport model:

1. All players from New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan obtain at least a $100,000 annual pay rise, and the top five players from each country obtain at least a $250,000 pay rise.

There would be tiered contracts:

Tier 1: $500,000 per year (e.g. Root, Starc, De Kock, Boult, Shakib)
Tier 2: $400,000 per year (e.g. Tamim, Watling, Philander)
Tier 3: $300,000 per year (e.g. marginal international players)
Tier 4: $200,000 per year (emerging young internationals)


2. And the Boards don't pay this: the ICC does, out of revenue from TV contracts. This requires less income than Australian AFL and NRL ALREADY obtain, and they don't sell rights overseas at all, let alone to India.

3. That only leaves players from Australia and England who may, in a handful of cases, suffer pay cuts. In practice, the only players who would would be Joe Root, Ben Stokes, David Warner, Steve Smith and Mitchell Starc, as all other players already earn less than 400,000 pounds per year.

4. I fully accept that India could and would go it alone, to answer [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] . My guess is that they would move to a 6 month IPL with contracts between $1 million and $6 million.

5. The ICC would respond the way they did with ICL, by making cricketers with IPL contracts banned from all international cricket.

6. At that point, pretty much every top class cricketer outside India who was over 30 with an IPL offer would leave.

7. So would every player under 30 who faced no prospect of a secure international future.

But every player aged under 30 would be happy to stay for a contract of $300,000 to $400,000 per year in their home country, plus the prospect of T20 top-ups (excluding IPL).

The players who would go would, in the example of Australia, be the likes of Dave Warner - now 30 years old - and inferior younger players like Sean Abbott.

If ICC responds the same way ICL did, why would you reckon that the cricketing boards would not resist to that? Why do you assume that if ICC were to stop boards interacting with WCC (Hypothetical alternate board) - other boards may not resist or ask for a clause that they are free to participate in alternate boards .
I do not see it being that linear that other boards will purely align to ICC - to exclude their chances to play anywhere else?

The tiered contracts that you are indicating are quite a hefty pay cut , you don't reckon a discontent ?

With Pakistan out of hosting cricket and assuming India out - which other nations provide with numerous stadiums with the ability to hold multiple matches ? - England and Australia ?

if WCC to destroy ICC's clout decides to have an equal sharing model let's say with ECB , CA and SAF to start with for example - Would they stick with ICC or join WCC ?

IPL is worth 4.5 billion - do you think investors who have made money in cricket and are willing to pump money in it - would not outbuy ICC ?

 

[cricketjoshila]

You are taking the short route my friend, india exiting worldcup hurt the nos big time, india pulling out of CT most likely will not hurt ICC monetarily but it is not a one off tournament, Star or whoever bids for icc events next time will do so on premise that it has a chance to grab a billion eyeballs with this, if that is not on table they won't bid big, it hurts icc in long run which is why icc changed the world cup 11 format, the broadcaster controls the keys to the coffers and if he does not get what he wants the money flow stops.

There is a difference between India playing and getting knocked out early,thats destiny no one can control it.No one can demand a guaranntee on it

Its totally different for India to actually boycott and not participate.

 

[kaayal]

IPL is huge in every state in India and that accounts for 1 billion population. It's has become more of state rivalry in cricket and many of us love it.. Add to that the bollywood money and the retired international players like Mccallum, gayle etc. We will definitely survive without the International cricket.

 

[Bilal7]

Well firstly ICC cannot block other members to participate with BCCI if they chose to. Your premise of BCCI being blocked by other boards for ICC ? really ? ICC doesn't have that much clout you realize that right ? if ICC cannot force BCCI to tour Pak , if it could not force bangladesh to tour Pak or WI to quit tours mid way - It's ability to enforce is limited.
Secondly, BCCI ofcourse needs international players - if those players get paid - why would they not participate with BCCI - how can ICC stop them ?

Same way South Africa were blacklisted for years. Of course, some foreign players will still play in India but not the elite ones. ICC can make it useless to play India by revoking their membership status.

 

[bleaf27]

Same way South Africa were blacklisted for years. Of course, some foreign players will still play in India but not the elite ones. ICC can make it useless to play India by revoking their membership status.

But again ICC does not control cricket , So let's say hypothetically another council opens - let's say WCC - World cricket council . Why would the existing ICC boards - ECB , CA and SAF ask exemption to play in other leagues too ? what if the monopoly of the ICC is questioned and players ask their clause not to have non-competition clause ?
and let's say for the sake of bringing ICC down - if WCC offers boards an equal share of profits with for example BCCI , ECB , CA , SAF to split 25 % profits - Do you think they wouldn't leave ICC ?
If WCC puts forth that players are free to play both for WCC and ICC and ICC tries to create a monopoly purely for ICC only - which one do you reckon would be more popular ?

 

[bleaf27]

Same way South Africa were blacklisted for years. Of course, some foreign players will still play in India but not the elite ones. ICC can make it useless to play India by revoking their membership status.

But again ICC does not control cricket , So let's say hypothetically another council opens - let's say WCC - World cricket council . Why would the existing ICC boards - ECB , CA and SAF not ask exemption to play in other leagues too ? what if the monopoly of the ICC is questioned and players ask their clause not to have non-competition clause ?
and let's say for the sake of bringing ICC down - if WCC offers boards an equal share of profits with for example BCCI , ECB , CA , SAF to split 25 % profits - Do you think they wouldn't leave ICC ?
If WCC puts forth that players are free to play both for WCC and ICC and ICC tries to create a monopoly purely for ICC only - which one do you reckon would be more popular ?

 

[JoniInsafian]

But again ICC does not control cricket , So let's say hypothetically another council opens - let's say WCC - World cricket council . Why would the existing ICC boards - ECB , CA and SAF not ask exemption to play in other leagues too ? what if the monopoly of the ICC is questioned and players ask their clause not to have non-competition clause ?
and let's say for the sake of bringing ICC down - if WCC offers boards an equal share of profits with for example BCCI , ECB , CA , SAF to split 25 % profits - Do you think they wouldn't leave ICC ?
If WCC puts forth that players are free to play both for WCC and ICC and ICC tries to create a monopoly purely for ICC only - which one do you reckon would be more popular ?

Why would boards join WCC when they know BCCI has only left because they want 50% of the pie??? Everybody knows that, as soon as ICC is dead, BCCI will start fighting to screw everybody else over.... Again. So there is no point for boards to leave ICC for WCC...

 

[bleaf27]

Why would boards join WCC when they know BCCI has only left because they want 50% of the pie??? Everybody knows that, as soon as ICC is dead, BCCI will start fighting to screw everybody else over.... Again. So there is no point for boards to leave ICC for WCC...

When you have to fight a war , you are willing to lose some battles. If it comes down to the point that an alternate cricketing body is made - BCCI would be smart enough to share the pie with the bigger % to let ICC break down.
Post ICC breakdown - It isn't about % but numbers - If let's say BCCI agrees to around 400 mill which is being offered by the ICC even right now and other members make 200 mil. - ECB , CA and SAF - you think they wouldn't take that ?

 

[jagatk]

There is a difference between India playing and getting knocked out early,thats destiny no one can control it.No one can demand a guaranntee on it

Its totally different for India to actually boycott and not participate.

2007 WC was just example bro, whatever the reason the end result was the same, if india exits early or india does not participate, the fact is majority of the tournament will be played without india and the result of that on viewership is not good.

 

[bleaf27]

What I find it funny is , ICC is offering BCCI 400 million as of right now. This is already 3 times more than what other boards are getting. So BCCI is negotiating a great buisness deal here - Instead of the "big 3" , if BCCI accepts 400 mill offer - its just the big 1 financially.
Any business negotiation goes back and forth - and with India already securing 400 mil from ICC as an offer and putting a stance forward for more Isn't a loss - thats buisness tacticss. If India started to make same money as PCB - 132 mil - that would have been a blow, this isn't.

According to the reports " It is understood that both BCCI representatives wanted to try and find a "middle path" on the finance model. The idea was to get as close to the $445 million figure the Committee of Administrators (CoA, appointed by Supreme Court of India to supervise the BCCI) had asked Manohar for in March"

If BCCI was looking for a figure of around 450 to settle with and already has an offer of 400 on the table - that's a damn good negotiation. And for anyone doubting BCCI's clout and influence in World cricket , how would you reckon things would have gone if PCB or WICB had tried to negotiate ? They wouldn't have been offered a seat on the negotiation table. BCCI is strong enough to be entertained and given an extra 100 million - that's how you judge worth.
PCB for example makes 132 mil and India is given 100 mil extra as a bonus to be pleased.

 

[sshakir411]

What I find it funny is , ICC is offering BCCI 400 million as of right now. This is already 3 times more than what other boards are getting. So BCCI is negotiating a great buisness deal here - Instead of the "big 3" , if BCCI accepts 400 mill offer - its just the big 1 financially.
Any business negotiation goes back and forth - and with India already securing 400 mil from ICC as an offer and putting a stance forward for more Isn't a loss - thats buisness tacticss. If India started to make same money as PCB - 132 mil - that would have been a blow, this isn't.

According to the reports " It is understood that both BCCI representatives wanted to try and find a "middle path" on the finance model. The idea was to get as close to the $445 million figure the Committee of Administrators (CoA, appointed by Supreme Court of India to supervise the BCCI) had asked Manohar for in March"

If BCCI was looking for a figure of around 450 to settle with and already has an offer of 400 on the table - that's a damn good negotiation. And for anyone doubting BCCI's clout and influence in World cricket , how would you reckon things would have gone if PCB or WICB had tried to negotiate ? They wouldn't have been offered a seat on the negotiation table. BCCI is strong enough to be entertained and given an extra 100 million - that's how you judge worth.
PCB for example makes 132 mil and India is given 100 mil extra as a bonus to be pleased.

Indians clearly losing it. Why on earth would you compare PCB to BCCI? I mean the size and scope of these organizations is world apart. Don't think anyone here or in the PCB thinks that they're comparables. Unless Indian fans doing this to make themselves feel better...that would make more sense. We Pakistanis also look towards Bangladesh and make similar comments on how 'awesome' we are..forgetting that there is no actual comparison to begin with.

 

[JoniInsafian]

When you have to fight a war , you are willing to lose some battles. If it comes down to the point that an alternate cricketing body is made - BCCI would be smart enough to share the pie with the bigger % to let ICC break down.
Post ICC breakdown - It isn't about % but numbers - If let's say BCCI agrees to around 400 mill which is being offered by the ICC even right now and other members make 200 mil. - ECB , CA and SAF - you think they wouldn't take that ?

No I don't think they would.... Because they can't trust BCCI to hold up its end of the bargain after it has fought to screw them over in ICC.... Also because ECB and CA are the ones who fought to give more money to the associates... If they wanted, they could have gotten those 200 mil from the increased money they gave the associates...

 

[bleaf27]

Indians clearly losing it. Why on earth would you compare PCB to BCCI? I mean the size and scope of these organizations is world apart. Don't think anyone here or in the PCB thinks that they're comparables. Unless Indian fans doing this to make themselves feel better...that would make more sense. We Pakistanis also look towards Bangladesh and make similar comments on how 'awesome' we are..forgetting that there is no actual comparison to begin with.

PCB is used an example just like CA or SAF board or any board - with BCCI already being offered 400 mil which is thrice the amount of other boards - considering the Big 3 - that's a hell of a job done by the negotiation team . This comparison isn't limited to only PCB if that makes you feel touchy

 

[JoniInsafian]

What I find it funny is , ICC is offering BCCI 400 million as of right now. This is already 3 times more than what other boards are getting. So BCCI is negotiating a great buisness deal here - Instead of the "big 3" , if BCCI accepts 400 mill offer - its just the big 1 financially.
Any business negotiation goes back and forth - and with India already securing 400 mil from ICC as an offer and putting a stance forward for more Isn't a loss - thats buisness tacticss. If India started to make same money as PCB - 132 mil - that would have been a blow, this isn't.

According to the reports " It is understood that both BCCI representatives wanted to try and find a "middle path" on the finance model. The idea was to get as close to the $445 million figure the Committee of Administrators (CoA, appointed by Supreme Court of India to supervise the BCCI) had asked Manohar for in March"

If BCCI was looking for a figure of around 450 to settle with and already has an offer of 400 on the table - that's a damn good negotiation. And for anyone doubting BCCI's clout and influence in World cricket , how would you reckon things would have gone if PCB or WICB had tried to negotiate ? They wouldn't have been offered a seat on the negotiation table. BCCI is strong enough to be entertained and given an extra 100 million - that's how you judge worth.
PCB for example makes 132 mil and India is given 100 mil extra as a bonus to be pleased.

PCB is happy with 18 millions a year from ICC... It's a decent amount of money... We don't mind if the rest of the money goes to associates and Bangladesh/Zimbawe, they need the money too.... PCB's only problem is no home matches.... And second would be tours with India but it's not that important....

 

[bleaf27]

No I don't think they would.... Because they can't trust BCCI to hold up its end of the bargain after it has fought to screw them over in ICC.... Also because ECB and CA are the ones who fought to give more money to the associates... If they wanted, they could have gotten those 200 mil from the increased money they gave the associates...

No, because in the proposed plan by BCCI - ECB and CA are making the same money as the one proposed by BCCI. The associate share is coming from BCCI not from ECB and CA. ECB and CA aren't getting more money than 132 and 143 either from BCCI proposed model nor the ICC model.
However if an alternate WCC model puts forth 200 mil for them which ICC isnit willing to give - you think they'd decline extra 70 million , that's nearly a 50 % raise , I doubt that.

 

[bleaf27]

PCB is happy with 18 millions a year from ICC... It's a decent amount of money... We don't mind if the rest of the money goes to associates and Bangladesh/Zimbawe, they need the money too.... PCB's only problem is no home matches.... And second would be tours with India but it's not that important....

When you know you cannot fight for more than what's being given to you , you have no choice but to be "happy". PCB isn't doing charity - it is taking what ICC is giving it , it doesn't have a choice - it does not hold any negotiation powers. BCCI does and it is doing that quite well to get 400 mil which is significant with ECB at 143 mil.

 

[JoniInsafian]

When you know you cannot fight for more than what's being given to you , you have no choice but to be "happy". PCB isn't doing charity - it is taking what ICC is giving it , it doesn't have a choice - it does not hold any negotiation powers. BCCI does and it is doing that quite well to get 400 mil which is significant with ECB at 143 mil.

It's hard to see not everybody is as greedy as you.... CA in particular could negotiate for more but they're happy with what they have for the game.... BCCI is short-sighted as opposed to CA and PCB, they'll decrease their revenues in the long-term by hurting international cricket and new teams like Afghanistan and Nepal.....

 

[JoniInsafian]

No, because in the proposed plan by BCCI - ECB and CA are making the same money as the one proposed by BCCI. The associate share is coming from BCCI not from ECB and CA. ECB and CA aren't getting more money than 132 and 143 either from BCCI proposed model nor the ICC model.
However if an alternate WCC model puts forth 200 mil for them which ICC isnit willing to give - you think they'd decline extra 70 million , that's nearly a 50 % raise , I doubt that.

You do realize BCCI just got outvoted 9-1??? Others don't have to give associate share to BCCI, they could keep it for themselves.... But they didn't because they're not as greedy as you....

 

[sshakir411]

PCB is used an example just like CA or SAF board or any board - with BCCI already being offered 400 mil which is thrice the amount of other boards - considering the Big 3 - that's a hell of a job done by the negotiation team . This comparison isn't limited to only PCB if that makes you feel touchy

I'm surprised finding out about India getting the biggest chunk is news to you. You can compare it with whomever but this has been known for a while...I think you're confused and hung up on the $400MM. While it's great India negotiated that...you should know the objection to the Big 3 model was primarily driven on the fact that to have a financially strong year you'd need to have bilateral series with India, Australia, and England. It was never about how much money India or anyone else was getting but rather the model where other countries had to rely on the Big 3 to prosper. If you're an objective person and can look beyond your BCCI aviators, you'll understand the model was flawed and was only agreed to because all boards (including PCB) were promised series against all of the Big 3...that's the only reason the Big 3 proposal was ever accepted.

 

[bleaf27]

You do realize BCCI just got outvoted 9-1??? Others don't have to give associate share to BCCI, they could keep it for themselves.... But they didn't because they're not as greedy as you....

The associate share is coming from BCCI not the others. The voting is for the associate share to be coming from BCCI. If BCCI makes 400 mil in the ICC model or let's say makes 400 mil in WCC model - if the other boards such as ECB and CA make more in the WCC model - 200 mil vs 132 which ICC pays them - why would they not switch ?

 

[bleaf27]

It's hard to see not everybody is as greedy as you.... CA in particular could negotiate for more but they're happy with what they have for the game.... BCCI is short-sighted as opposed to CA and PCB, they'll decrease their revenues in the long-term by hurting international cricket and new teams like Afghanistan and Nepal.....

You are giving the lack of competency and powerless nature of the PCB the tuxedo of altruism and generosity? PCB does not have any other choice but to keep quiet and sit and watch. Secondly, CA and ECB make the same money in either model - so financially they are not to lose in either way much.

 

[bleaf27]

I'm surprised finding out about India getting the biggest chunk is news to you. You can compare it with whomever but this has been known for a while...I think you're confused and hung up on the $400MM. While it's great India negotiated that...you should know the objection to the Big 3 model was primarily driven on the fact that to have a financially strong year you'd need to have bilateral series with India, Australia, and England. It was never about how much money India or anyone else was getting but rather the model where other countries had to rely on the Big 3 to prosper. If you're an objective person and can look beyond your BCCI aviators, you'll understand the model was flawed and was only agreed to because all boards (including PCB) were promised series against all of the Big 3...that's the only reason the Big 3 proposal was ever accepted.

No biggest chunk wasn't news to me but the gap between other nations paycheck and BCCI's was. I didn't ever look that up before , I know it was more than others but certainly not by this extent. I do not have any issue with the Big 3 model - if it needs to be broken up so be it - this dogtag of "big 3" is irrelevant - BCCI holding it's position to get the revenue they deem fairly with the ICC is what's at stake.

 

[imrankhannsu]

They wanted a two tier system: Word Cricket vs Indian IPL

 

[Napa]

Indians will still be watching ICC tournaments even if India is not participating.

Indians don't watch the Super Bowl or the World Series, nor will they watch ICC without India playing.

I am sure the TV networks who contracted to pay $2.7 billion to ICC have a clause which lets them cancel the contract if a major country drops out. Given that their advertising revenues will fall by more than 50%, they will definitely renegotiate or cancel.

 

[Napa]

Dont tell me who is whose baap.Its your opinion and dont extrapolate it to me.

You claimed that "Honest Indian Fans" will not support pull out of CT.When did you become the judge of honesty or what should Indian fans do?Are you the spokesperson of Indian fans here?

Josh, other real Indians like me are definitely with you on this one. We are 99% of the country's population. As for the rest 1% (like Manohar), the less said the better.

 

[Bilal7]

But again ICC does not control cricket , So let's say hypothetically another council opens - let's say WCC - World cricket council . Why would the existing ICC boards - ECB , CA and SAF not ask exemption to play in other leagues too ? what if the monopoly of the ICC is questioned and players ask their clause not to have non-competition clause ?
and let's say for the sake of bringing ICC down - if WCC offers boards an equal share of profits with for example BCCI , ECB , CA , SAF to split 25 % profits - Do you think they wouldn't leave ICC ?
If WCC puts forth that players are free to play both for WCC and ICC and ICC tries to create a monopoly purely for ICC only - which one do you reckon would be more popular ?

So the BCCI that is crying over what it calls an unfair profit sharing plan will create a new body which will offer equal profits to all of its members?

BCCI can do a lot of things to try and save cricket in India but the best thing to do would be to shut up, take the money and agree to participate in the Champions Trophy like good, little boys. Anything else would be drawn out and counterintuitive.

 

[shravan]

Josh, other real Indians like me are definitely with you on this one. We are 99% of the country's population. As for the rest 1% (like Manohar), the less said the better.

Couldnt agree more with this.

 

[sshakir411]

No biggest chunk wasn't news to me but the gap between other nations paycheck and BCCI's was. I didn't ever look that up before , I know it was more than others but certainly not by this extent. I do not have any issue with the Big 3 model - if it needs to be broken up so be it - this dogtag of "big 3" is irrelevant - BCCI holding it's position to get the revenue they deem fairly with the ICC is what's at stake.

for Indians yes, not for others. You have to realize an objection to the Big 3 was never an objection to the money BCCI gets. I think this is the issue. Majority of Indians and indian fans think anyone who objects the Big 3 model was in someway objecting to India getting the largest chunk...this is not true. This model forced all boards to play with the big 3 in order to be financially competitive and this is exactly why the PCB has brought up it's MOU with BCCI a billion times. India can keep however much it wants...we (other cricketing nations' fans) just want a sustainable model that will not make us dependent on other boards specially BCCI. And if today was the first time you looked up what the Big 3 was about than you really have no clue what impact it's had on other boards.

 

[Bilal7]

Indians don't watch the Super Bowl or the World Series, nor will they watch ICC without India playing.

I am sure the TV networks who contracted to pay $2.7 billion to ICC have a clause which lets them cancel the contract if a major country drops out. Given that their advertising revenues will fall by more than 50%, they will definitely renegotiate or cancel.

That is because Indians don't know a thing about Baseball or Football or Basketball. They do enjoy cricket and they'll keep watching, apart from a small percentage of hardcore, Hindu nationalists but to them I say good riddance.

The ICC definitely will be impacted but that is exactly why they will kick the BCCI to the curb. The BCCI though, will cease to exist and the Indian public will roast them.