BCCI's last shot : Pull out of Champions Trophy

[USofA]

True. Never disputed it.

If cricketing market in other countries would have been tapped, things wouldn't have gotten so bad.

Yes, and each board is responsible for not tapping their market and maximizing their revenue potential. The blame lies with the boards and to a lesser extent with the ICC.

 

[Madplayer]

Yes, and each board is responsible for not tapping their market and maximizing their revenue potential. The blame lies with the boards and to a lesser extent with the ICC.

In case of Pakistan, the market couldn't get tapped due to non-cricketing reasons. If cricket returns to Pakistan, it would brinh some respite.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] no offense but u r making sound like everything evil in ICC is BCCI unfortunate that is.

Not far from the truth tbh. All the boards are ultimately selfish and look out only for themselves but at least in the case of some they need the money, BCCI could build a leaning tower of Pisa out of 100 dollar bills and burn the thing and not even be slightly affected, yet they want even more and more of the pie.

 

[Markhor]

[MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] no offense but u r making sound like everything evil in ICC is BCCI unfortunate that is.

Who else is threatening to boycott Champions Trophy ? Of course BCCI is entitled to look after its own interests like every other board and is entitled to a greater say in the affairs of the game due to its market size. India's presence in world cricket is of utmost importance.

But please let's not pretend BCCI's opposition to Big 3 rollback is based on some principled notion of not wanting to prop up incompetent boards who should be able to fend for themselves when they've been the biggest allies of possibly the most corrupt and incompetent cricket board in ZCB.

 

[USofA]

Not far from the truth tbh. All the boards are ultimately selfish and look out only for themselves but at least in the case of some they need the money, BCCI could build a leaning tower of Pisa out of 100 dollar bills and burn the thing and not even be slightly affected, yet they want even more and more of the pie.

I do not see anything wrong in them wanting to keep more of their own money. Most of us are programmed to want more. Especially when it comes to the matter of $$. This is a capitalistic world that we live in.

 

[USofA]

Who else is threatening to boycott Champions Trophy ? Of course BCCI is entitled to look after its own interests like every other board and is entitled to a greater say in the affairs of the game due to its market size. India's presence in world cricket is of utmost importance.

But please let's not pretend BCCI's opposition to Big 3 rollback is based on some principled notion of not wanting to prop up incompetent boards who should be able to fend for themselves when they've been the biggest allies of possibly the most corrupt and incompetent cricket board in ZCB.

Absolutely right. BCCI is just looking after their own interests. And nothing wrong with that.

 

[JaDed]

Not far from the truth tbh. All the boards are ultimately selfish and look out only for themselves but at least in the case of some they need the money, BCCI could build a leaning tower of Pisa out of 100 dollar bills and burn the thing and not even be slightly affected, yet they want even more and more of the pie.

) ,you could be true but people keep forgetting that not long ago we were not able to pay our Ranji players enough money,the conditions of stadiums before IPL was nothing to brag about,most people in BCCI administration have seen those days,when playing in county was like a dream and we didn't have proper grass to dive on.

India is still a poor country and BCCI is only now trying to move it tier 2 cities ,please don't forget we are not a first world country yet,also we have so many towns and districts where BCCI has to make the game have atleast an infrastructural presence.

Who else is threatening to boycott Champions Trophy ? Of course BCCI is entitled to look after its own interests like every other board and is entitled to a greater say in the affairs of the game due to its market size. India's presence in world cricket is of utmost importance.

But please let's not pretend BCCI's opposition to Big 3 rollback is based on some principled notion of not wanting to prop up incompetent boards who should be able to fend for themselves when they've been the biggest allies of possibly the most corrupt and incompetent cricket board in ZCB.

I'm agreeing with you there BCCI is as political as it gets but so is every other board,why is BCCI being singled out here??

 

[Donal Cozzie]

I do not see anything wrong in them wanting to keep more of their own money. Most of us are programmed to want more. Especially when it comes to the matter of $$. This is a capitalistic world that we live in.

Except its not "their" money, they don't own cricket. For all the money India draws people forget that without teams to tour or play against the BCCI would also lose revenue long term. Everyone seems to act like the BCCI are the generous charity givers but they never point that that part of the reason the BCCI are so wealthy is that they have teams to play against, if they pull out of the CT and play nobody, while the BCCI would still remain rich, do you think they'd make as much money as they do currently?

Plus when the richest boards continued enrichment comes at the expense of the teams who need that money the most then yes I do see the problem. You're looking at the situation through the eyes of an administrator, completely forgetting that their is more to sport than just business (although it plays a big part).

Why stop there, let the Big 3 take 95% of the revenue, watch the competitiveness of international cricket decrease hugely as a result and tell me that broadcasters will still be willing to pay 2.5 billion dollars for TV rights of ICC events with zero competitive value.

 

[aniket1911]

Oh for pete's sake stop blaming the SC for everything, sure they might've taken the nuclear option but the sports administration in this country needs a serious overhaul. Maybe if we can pull bureaucrats & politicians out of sports bodies we could look to cleanse the polity as well sometime in the future, the change has to start somewhere. India is more important than the BCCI or ICC or whatever, if this step brings that change it'll benefit every Indian in the long run, everyone else on the BCCI gravy train can go take a hike!

Well for now, the money coming to India is gonna lessen and I am not seeing any change for good in near future as well. Good luck giving unconstitutional orders of SC a positive turn.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

There is absolutely no sarcasm involved. As you have highlighted we have the deepest pockets in world cricket, we have the best stadiums and world class infrastructure in place therefore there is no need for extra finance flowing into our pond when it could help revive smaller nations which are on the verge of becoming non existent, countries like Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Ireland, Netherlands, also Sri Lanka, Pakistan, WI could use the money in developing the game and making the sport more competitive.
At present the standard of cricket is at its lowest most of the talent and resources are concentrated within the "big 3", there is just too much gulf in quality and that makes for poor viewing and development of the game. If someone has the intent of expanding the game and making it more popular then such predatory tactics have to be shelved forthwith.

We have the best stadiums, world class infrastructure? Which world you live in? Or you think its okay to have just 4 or 5 international class centers in a country as big as India's?

India has a vast domestic infrastructure yet to develop and they are not against other smaller nations developing but they do have a right to a large portion of the revenue because they have large expenses to bear for development of game.

It does sound nice to believe in a world where all are equal and everything is rosy but sorry that is not the world we live in.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Who else is threatening to boycott Champions Trophy ? Of course BCCI is entitled to look after its own interests like every other board and is entitled to a greater say in the affairs of the game due to its market size. India's presence in world cricket is of utmost importance.

But please let's not pretend BCCI's opposition to Big 3 rollback is based on some principled notion of not wanting to prop up incompetent boards who should be able to fend for themselves when they've been the biggest allies of possibly the most corrupt and incompetent cricket board in ZCB.

What does this even mean? So we play Zimbabwe every alternate years, it only helps them financially? Its not India's job to set the ZCB house in order, what is ICC there for?

 

[Zak_Fan]

BCCI sustains Cricket in a nation of 1.3 billion people (a larger population than all other Cricket nations combined), generates most of the Cricket revenue, yet they should only be given a share that is hardly 3 times more than what England get? Are posters here serious?

Yes other teams play a part in making this possible, and for that they are getting 80% of the revenue. What would have been 5 million without BCCI is 50 millions today. So why be so greedy and ungrateful?

 

[Markhor]

What does this even mean? So we play Zimbabwe every alternate years, it only helps them financially? Its not India's job to set the ZCB house in order, what is ICC there for?

Refer to #73 and #78.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Not far from the truth tbh. All the boards are ultimately selfish and look out only for themselves but at least in the case of some they need the money, BCCI could build a leaning tower of Pisa out of 100 dollar bills and burn the thing and not even be slightly affected, yet they want even more and more of the pie.

Sorry but you have no clue why BCCI need the kind of money they are rightfully demanding. Do you even know the size of Indian domestic cricket? The no. of teams? The no. of players? And that all retired players get a decent pension?

Cricket is now a viable career option in India even if you don't make it to the national team, thanks to BCCI's financial status but that is because they have put in money to grass roots. BCCI is not some social organisation to prop up cricket in other countries, problem is smaller boards have got used to hand outs and have done zilch to use that money to bring themselves up.

But India is so large that there are still cricket centers that need massive money to be poured in to reach the status main centers are at now. So do we develop those or help Ireland come up? I am sorry but you aren't our responsibility. You are ICC's and ICC need to make boards accountable, Look at the state of SL, WI cricket its not like they dont get money but where is their cricket going? Getting more money out of BCCI's pocket into theirs isnt going to solve their problem.

 

[Zak_Fan]

I am fine with India sitting this Champion's Trophy out. The demanded share isn't even unreasonable. Anything less, and the growth we have seen in Indian Cricket's infrastructure and quality will halt, and eventually, it will hit ICC and every single board more than what a 5% lesser share will today.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

There was a vote on the matter at an ICC board meeting in 2008 and the result was split so the KPMG report has never been made public or even distributed to the ICC member boards. India along with other boards voted against.

If this is true, well it just goes to show how inept ICC is in its current structure. Just like the UNSC. If members get to vote, then you cant really expect them to vote against their interests will you?

Did PCB willingly jump into Big 3? Not until they were promised 6 series. Everyone is in it for their own interests.

Problem is no one here is saying BCCI is clean and always act in the best interests but why put all the onus on BCCI for problems in world cricket? BCCI don't have a veto like ECB or CA did, the other boards need to stand up. Not the other way around.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

I am fine with India sitting this Champion's Trophy out. The demanded share isn't even unreasonable. Anything less, and the growth we have seen in Indian Cricket's infrastructure and quality will halt, and eventually, it will hit ICC and every single board more than what a 5% lesser share will today.

Of all the demands, the share% isn't even a big issue tbh. 16-17% is still a sizeable amount, something that can be negotiated a little further upwards.

If they however try to meddle with India's telecast rights and try to play around BCCI's IPL window. Thats war.

 

[pillionrider]

So basically the problem BCCI supporters have is similar to the one tax-payers have in dole friendly countries? Barring of course the argument that the tax payer earns his salary irrespective of whether the person on dole exists.

Let's see.

Cricket Fan #1:
I sit through a broadcast that keeps me on edge on whether I'm gonna be able to see a cricketer's expression or another non-bat-on-ball moment before an ad cuts in.

I set aside time from family and work just so I can lend my eyeballs to a game I love.

I invest emotion that affects my mood and personality.

The BCCI takes all of this from me and exchanges it for a wad of non-demonetized currency. But soon I'm told, a chunk of that wad is not gonna come back into improving my team but will be handed out to another team that might one day trample all over mine.

With the money I earned them? You joking right?

Cricket Fan #2:
I set aside time from family or work just so I can lend my eyeballs to a game I love.

I invest emotion that affects my mood and personality.

My cricket board takes all of this and exchanges it for a wad of money. And then I'm told, due to a difference in exchange rates, the wad of money they got is worth way less than what Cricket Fan #1 earned.

My country is not as talented as I think it is and requires work and effort in grooming existing talent. But we don't earn enough funds to do that. Please don't be so selfish and help us out.

Cricket Fan #1:
When you put it that way... but tell me, if you were me, would you practice what you today preach?

Personally, I'd say, you can't go wrong being either.

 

[JaDed]

So basically the problem BCCI supporters have is similar to the one tax-payers have in dole friendly countries? Barring of course the argument that the tax payer earns his salary irrespective of whether the person on dole exists.

Let's see.

Cricket Fan #1:
I sit through a broadcast that keeps me on edge on whether I'm gonna be able to see a cricketer's expression or another non-bat-on-ball moment before an ad cuts in.

I set aside time from family and work just so I can lend my eyeballs to a game I love.

I invest emotion that affects my mood and personality.

The BCCI takes all of this from me and exchanges it for a wad of non-demonetized currency. But soon I'm told, a chunk of that wad is not gonna come back into improving my team but will be handed out to another team that might one day trample all over mine.

With the money I earned them? You joking right?

Cricket Fan #2:
I set aside time from family or work just so I can lend my eyeballs to a game I love.

I invest emotion that affects my mood and personality.

My cricket board takes all of this and exchanges it for a wad of money. And then I'm told, due to a difference in exchange rates, the wad of money they got is worth way less than what Cricket Fan #1 earned.

My country is not as talented as I think it is and requires work and effort in grooming existing talent. But we don't earn enough funds to do that. Please don't be so selfish and help us out.

Cricket Fan #1:
When you put it that way... but tell me, if you were me, would you practice what you today preach?

Personally, I'd say, you can't go wrong being either.

Your posts have gotten really good with time.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Sorry but you have no clue why BCCI need the kind of money they are rightfully demanding. Do you even know the size of Indian domestic cricket? The no. of teams? The no. of players? And that all retired players get a decent pension?

Cricket is now a viable career option in India even if you don't make it to the national team, thanks to BCCI's financial status but that is because they have put in money to grass roots. BCCI is not some social organisation to prop up cricket in other countries, problem is smaller boards have got used to hand outs and have done zilch to use that money to bring themselves up.

But India is so large that there are still cricket centers that need massive money to be poured in to reach the status main centers are at now. So do we develop those or help Ireland come up? I am sorry but you aren't our responsibility. You are ICC's and ICC need to make boards accountable, Look at the state of SL, WI cricket its not like they dont get money but where is their cricket going? Getting more money out of BCCI's pocket into theirs isnt going to solve their problem.

Did these pensions and great pay and other things you describe only come into play in 2014 or did they exist before that??

If they existed before that then it shows that the BCCI have more than enough money to treat its cricketers well under the old revenue model i.e before they made a grab for 200 million extra dollars at the expense of virtually everyone else.

Smaller boards have got used to hand outs, agreed, but the problem isn't the hand-outs themselves, its the corruption and malpractice that these boards have become involved in. BCCI have done nothing to stop this , hell in Zimbabwe's case they encouraged it as [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] pointed out. You rightfully claim that its not the BCCI's responsibility to stop this, correct, but when they suppress and encourage the corruption, again as Markhor pointed out, then its definitely the BCCI's responsibility since they arguably prevented it being fixed or being put in the spotlight.

How can the ICC make boards accountable when its a proxy of the BCCI, who let their friend boards like ZCB,SLCB get away with corruption and malpractice so long as they vote the BCCI's way?? I'm not even arguing for SL/WI to get more money, those boards are in a mess of their own creation, my concern is spreading cricket as a sport. The BCCI backed Big 3 model was a direct counter to that goal and the shrinking of the WC to milk the Indian TV market was also a complete slap in the face to the well managed Associate boards who've tirelessly worked under absolutely pitiful budgets to help the sport grow, and have faced absolutely no help from the ICC in doing so.

See my previous post on this page as well if you haven't either, this logic that cricket owes everything to the BCCI is foolish IMO because without international competition the BCCI income would be far smaller than it is, despite the IPL printing money.

 

[USofA]

Except its not "their" money, they don't own cricket. For all the money India draws people forget that without teams to tour or play against the BCCI would also lose revenue long term. Everyone seems to act like the BCCI are the generous charity givers but they never point that that part of the reason the BCCI are so wealthy is that they have teams to play against, if they pull out of the CT and play nobody, while the BCCI would still remain rich, do you think they'd make as much money as they do currently?

Plus when the richest boards continued enrichment comes at the expense of the teams who need that money the most then yes I do see the problem. You're looking at the situation through the eyes of an administrator, completely forgetting that their is more to sport than just business (although it plays a big part).

Why stop there, let the Big 3 take 95% of the revenue, watch the competitiveness of international cricket decrease hugely as a result and tell me that broadcasters will still be willing to pay 2.5 billion dollars for TV rights of ICC events with zero competitive value.

Short answer is yes, they can make money. In a scenario where the BCCI no longer plays international cricket they will develop the IPL. They already make more money from the IPL than they do from international cricket. Expanding and developing IPL into a longer more robust format/league will only increase the revenue.

The TV people will re-focus their efforts in securing rights for IPL rather than international cricket. So when that happens the advertising $$ will follow. So it will only add $$$ to BCCI coffers. In the long run I think they will be able to sustain much better than the rest of the cricketing world. Not to mention a gulf of difference in the revenues generated.

I am all for BCCI to share their wealth with the lesser boards (WI, SL, Zim to name a few). But I feel that there should be an end game to it. You cannot just keep giving these boards money when they do not show any signs of improvement/change. I think money should be given with a requirement of visible results over a period of time.

I would suggest that the ICC should commit to giving them money for 5 years. Let them develop a plan to market the game, make infrastructure improvements etc. After 2 years the ICC should go in and get a full update and do it once a year from there on. At the end of 5 years if things are on the path to self sustainability then ICC should continue to support for 2-3 more years. If not then.....

Essentially put the boards on a 7-8 year course of self sustainment.

 

[USofA]

If this is true, well it just goes to show how inept ICC is in its current structure. Just like the UNSC. If members get to vote, then you cant really expect them to vote against their interests will you?

Did PCB willingly jump into Big 3? Not until they were promised 6 series. Everyone is in it for their own interests.

Problem is no one here is saying BCCI is clean and always act in the best interests but why put all the onus on BCCI for problems in world cricket? BCCI don't have a veto like ECB or CA did, the other boards need to stand up. Not the other way around.

Spot on. When others do not have a back bone and are not willing to stand up, then no point in crying that the BCCI is throwing its weight around and having its way.

 

[Thivagar]

Because they don't control these players? Not even the individual boards can do anything about it if players want to freelance, & there isn't international cricket that'll bind them to central contracts! Do you think the EPL, La liga or MLS would die off should Fifa be dissolved anytime in the future?

Can't compare EPL/FIFA situation with IPL for many reasons.
1. Nobody outside of India supports a particular team, if they do it is probably because one or more players from their country is playing for that team. Other than that, Mumbai, Kolkota and Kerala are all the same team for them. Everyone wants to watch Chris Gayle, ABD and B-mac, nobody wants to watch Ashok Dinda bowl to Abishek Juhnujunwala.
2. Star players won't ditch their national team for IPL, only the likes of Gayle who is at his limelight of his career may. Young players won't risk ditching their board for IPL when there is only 4 spots per lineup and only 8 teams.
3. IPL hires players based on their ability to perform at the international stage. If home boards ban them where will these IPL players train ? Talking about training; Indian players themselves will decline to due to lack of competition. Kohli isn't going to be Kohli facing Rp Sing and Manpreet Gony.
4. International teams will still sell their broadcast rights to the Indian market.
5. You think Indian players themselves want to not play for India ?

When you consider all these factors, BCCI and India has everything to lose and nothing much to gain by boycotting ICC.

 

[Thivagar]

All I know is that if the overly patriotic Indians who's ego's are inexplicably tied to BCCI revenue/power are getting flustered and money gets more evenly spread this can only be a good thing

Indians are probably the only fans that associate themselves with their country's cricketing board.

 

[Drreddymd]

Indians are probably the only fans that associate themselves with their country's cricketing board.

Why not? What is so bad in doing so? Demanding a rightful share of the pie is a problem for u people. Do u know the financial model of laliga, epl? In laliga, bundesliga top teams Like real, barca, bayern gets the lions share and uts upto teams to increase their revenues and not depend on hand outs.

Cricket is not socialist thing in which u take money from rich boards and distribute to poor bankrupt corrupt boards. How long u want handouts?

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Did these pensions and great pay and other things you describe only come into play in 2014 or did they exist before that??

If they existed before that then it shows that the BCCI have more than enough money to treat its cricketers well under the old revenue model i.e before they made a grab for 200 million extra dollars at the expense of virtually everyone else.

So I guess you wont mind making the same salary 10 years down the line, because that is sufficient for you now?

Smaller boards have got used to hand outs, agreed, but the problem isn't the hand-outs themselves, its the corruption and malpractice that these boards have become involved in. BCCI have done nothing to stop this , hell in Zimbabwe's case they encouraged it as [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] pointed out. You rightfully claim that its not the BCCI's responsibility to stop this, correct, but when they suppress and encourage the corruption, again as Markhor pointed out, then its definitely the BCCI's responsibility since they arguably prevented it being fixed or being put in the spotlight.

How can the ICC make boards accountable when its a proxy of the BCCI, who let their friend boards like ZCB,SLCB get away with corruption and malpractice so long as they vote the BCCI's way?? I'm not even arguing for SL/WI to get more money, those boards are in a mess of their own creation, my concern is spreading cricket as a sport. The BCCI backed Big 3 model was a direct counter to that goal and the shrinking of the WC to milk the Indian TV market was also a complete slap in the face to the well managed Associate boards who've tirelessly worked under absolutely pitiful budgets to help the sport grow, and have faced absolutely no help from the ICC in doing so.

BCCI does this, BCCI does that. This rant has gotten really old tbh. Again, BCCI doesn't have veto, so to say BCCI alone is sheilding those boards is absurd. ICC in its current state is broke and lets boards gang up and move a motion they see fit for themselves. So ICC needs to restructure and that is not BCCI's job.

See my previous post on this page as well if you haven't either, this logic that cricket owes everything to the BCCI is foolish IMO because without international competition the BCCI income would be far smaller than it is, despite the IPL printing money.

No one says ICC owes it to BCCI or world cricket owes it to BCCI. BCCI isn't asking for something that isn't theirs. If they were, you would see them demanding whole of the supposed 80% revenue they generate.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Why not? What is so bad in doing so? Demanding a rightful share of the pie is a problem for u people. Do u know the financial model of laliga, epl? In laliga, bundesliga top teams Like real, barca, bayern gets the lions share and uts upto teams to increase their revenues and not depend on hand outs.

Cricket is not socialist thing in which u take money from rich boards and distribute to poor bankrupt corrupt boards. How long u want handouts?

And thats why both of those leagues are far less interesting and less exciting than the Premier League which is worth about five times more than both, and it shares its money equally enough among all the 20 teams.

Lol bad example mate.

 

[IMMY69]

Is it just me or is anyone else losing some interest in all this?

Play the CT, pull out of the CT..
Frankly, I don't really care.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

I mean Ireland should rather be concerned about England poaching their best players, money is least of their concerns. Top talent isnt staying there, so no amount of money is going to make them competitive. Any player worth their talent moves to county for better life. And now that is happening with Saffers too. How is getting a few extra bucks out of BCCI's pocket going to help them?

The whole argument has been made around how evil BCCI has stopped the game from spreading while the game has many other problems that is stopping it from developing in smaller nations.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

So I guess you wont mind making the same salary 10 years down the line, because that is sufficient for you now?



BCCI does this, BCCI does that. This rant has gotten really old tbh. Again, BCCI doesn't have veto, so to say BCCI alone is sheilding those boards is absurd. ICC in its current state is broke and lets boards gang up and move a motion they see fit for themselves. So ICC needs to restructure and that is not BCCI's job.



No one says ICC owes it to BCCI or world cricket owes it to BCCI. BCCI isn't asking for something that isn't theirs. If they were, you would see them demanding whole of the supposed 80% revenue they generate.

If my salary increase was to be to the detriment of the people I work with then yeah, I'd rather not take it tbh.

Agree with you re: the ICC being broke. Also agree this isn't solely the BCCI's blame, ECB and its ******** opposition to the Olympics also deserves ridicule. Difference is the ECB/CA seem to have seen some common sense in the past 12 months. The thing you aren't seeing is, the Woolf report was commissioned after the 2011 WC to specifically analyse and comment on the ICC's structure and actions, and it was scathing in its criticism. It was basically shelved by the ICC, the most powerful member of whom is....the BCCI. So how can you not see the link here lol, the BCCI aren't in charge of changing things, but they also oppose changing things. And its not exactly a secret that the BCB/ZCB/SLCB/WICB basically vote along the lines of India in return for a series or two on important issues, that was made blatantly obvious during the Big 3 negotiations. Point is, the ICC needs to restructure correct, thats what its trying to do right now, but its struggling because India doesn't want it to change because its completely selfish and doesn't care if the game gets hurt once it gets its money. Seriously how can you not see that. You're trying to paint the BCCI as some sort of entity forced to do what its done to get its way which is complete codswallop. How can the ICC restructure when India threatens it each and every time it tries to change itself??

 

[IMMY69]

The board, the country, the people themselves are a self absorbed lot.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

I mean Ireland should rather be concerned about England poaching their best players, money is least of their concerns. Top talent isnt staying there, so no amount of money is going to make them competitive. Any player worth their talent moves to county for better life. And now that is happening with Saffers too. How is getting a few extra bucks out of BCCI's pocket going to help them?

The whole argument has been made around how evil BCCI has stopped the game from spreading while the game has many other problems that is stopping it from developing in smaller nations.

Thats an eligibility issue, change the rules and that issue can be solved without much hassle.

Also, my main issue and our main issue isn't England poaching, but rather the chronic lack of money and opportunities we get which leads to players leaving and England poaching instead. If Ireland had even half of Zimbabwe's cash we could guarantee whatever players we get 1) test cricket 2) regular cricket vs international teams and 3) a wage. None of which we can do atm because, you guessed it, the ICC doesn't give a damn, although tbf it has improved over the past year

Anyway, I'll list the main issues I think affect smaller nations, you can list any I've left out.

1) Lack of games stemming from ICC indifference
2) Moronic WC layout of 10 teams, done to milk the Indian market. India complained when it got knocked out fair and square in 2007 (along with Pakistan tbf) and the ICC lost lots of money so the smaller teams essentially got shafted for playing well.
3) Lack of money. Associate funding got cut by around 170 million IIRC in the Big 3 takeover which, you guessed it, the BCCI supported.

You know nobody is saying its solely India's fault, I apologise if I've come off that way, but to try and say the BCCI havent had a hand in it is foolish. When even a minute amount of the money India makes has the potential to completely transform cricket elsewhere, and they continue trying to get more and more and more, and take more and more and more, you really can see why people get fed up of India threatening and pulling its weight on a constant basis, and acting as if cricket would cease to exist without its generosity. Then you see Zimbabwe,West Indies,Sri Lanka blowing millions and millions of dollars, and the BCCI turn a blind eye to that, and then Indian fans try to claim the BCCI is acting from a pure "Its just business" pov?? Lol come on.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

If my salary increase was to be to the detriment of the people I work with then yeah, I'd rather not take it tbh.

Agree with you re: the ICC being broke. Also agree this isn't solely the BCCI's blame, ECB and its ******** opposition to the Olympics also deserves ridicule. Difference is the ECB/CA seem to have seen some common sense in the past 12 months. The thing you aren't seeing is, the Woolf report was commissioned after the 2011 WC to specifically analyse and comment on the ICC's structure and actions, and it was scathing in its criticism. It was basically shelved by the ICC, the most powerful member of whom is....the BCCI. So how can you not see the link here lol, the BCCI aren't in charge of changing things, but they also oppose changing things. And its not exactly a secret that the BCB/ZCB/SLCB/WICB basically vote along the lines of India in return for a series or two on important issues, that was made blatantly obvious during the Big 3 negotiations. Point is, the ICC needs to restructure correct, thats what its trying to do right now, but its struggling because India doesn't want it to change because its completely selfish and doesn't care if the game gets hurt once it gets its money. Seriously how can you not see that. You're trying to paint the BCCI as some sort of entity forced to do what its done to get its way which is complete codswallop. How can the ICC restructure when India threatens it each and every time it tries to change itself??

I agree that BCCI opposing doesn't help ICC restructuring but changes proposed by ICC are hardly going to solve any problems.

So India's cut goes down from 20% to 16%. How does ICC see to it that Ireland cricket develops and isn't just a breeding ground for county teams and England? Or Afghanistan for that matter becomes a competitive team in years to come?

Right now, all that is happening is, is looking to get more money into the pockets of smaller boards. If only money solved the whole problem.

Frankly I think the revenue sharing proposed is fair enough, BCCI still get a larger cut than most teams combined and rightly so. However what would hurt them most is when you club telecast rights, why would they be party to a deal less lucrative so that broadcasters pick up Bangladesh or Sri Lanka test series?

How will it make SLC or BCB for that matter work harder at improving their cricket and make themselves marketable?

Do you honestly think any of these recommendation are going to fix the issues?

Only good thing coming out of this from a viewer pov is the league system which will give more context to the meaningless bilaterals. Other than that, it just seems to me that its all about getting money out of BCCIs pockets into the smaller boards. And money ain't gonna fix your problems.

 

[JattMaula]

Looks like BCCI is movie villain in some minds.

 

[USofA]

If my salary increase was to be to the detriment of the people I work with then yeah, I'd rather not take it tbh.

Agree with you re: the ICC being broke. Also agree this isn't solely the BCCI's blame, ECB and its ******** opposition to the Olympics also deserves ridicule. Difference is the ECB/CA seem to have seen some common sense in the past 12 months. The thing you aren't seeing is, the Woolf report was commissioned after the 2011 WC to specifically analyse and comment on the ICC's structure and actions, and it was scathing in its criticism. It was basically shelved by the ICC, the most powerful member of whom is....the BCCI. So how can you not see the link here lol, the BCCI aren't in charge of changing things, but they also oppose changing things. And its not exactly a secret that the BCB/ZCB/SLCB/WICB basically vote along the lines of India in return for a series or two on important issues, that was made blatantly obvious during the Big 3 negotiations. Point is, the ICC needs to restructure correct, thats what its trying to do right now, but its struggling because India doesn't want it to change because its completely selfish and doesn't care if the game gets hurt once it gets its money. Seriously how can you not see that. You're trying to paint the BCCI as some sort of entity forced to do what its done to get its way which is complete codswallop. How can the ICC restructure when India threatens it each and every time it tries to change itself??

And the ICC and other boards aren't?

This restructure is happening on the back of BCCI money...again. Which means nothing much is changing. The ICC will still remain a backbone less organization clawing at the feet of the BCCI. It does not change things one bit. BCCI will still end up wielding a lot of power.

The change needs to be drastic completely different setup.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

I agree that BCCI opposing doesn't help ICC restructuring but changes proposed by ICC are hardly going to solve any problems.

So India's cut goes down from 20% to 16%. How does ICC see to it that Ireland cricket develops and isn't just a breeding ground for county teams and England? Or Afghanistan for that matter becomes a competitive team in years to come?

Right now, all that is happening is, is looking to get more money into the pockets of smaller boards. If only money solved the whole problem.

Frankly I think the revenue sharing proposed is fair enough, BCCI still get a larger cut than most teams combined and rightly so. However what would hurt them most is when you club telecast rights, why would they be party to a deal less lucrative so that broadcasters pick up Bangladesh or Sri Lanka test series?

How will it make SLC or BCB for that matter work harder at improving their cricket and make themselves marketable?

Do you honestly think any of these recommendation are going to fix the issues?

Only good thing coming out of this from a viewer pov is the league system which will give more context to the meaningless bilaterals. Other than that, it just seems to me that its all about getting money out of BCCIs pockets into the smaller boards. And money ain't gonna fix your problems.

To be fair those are all valid points. But you overstate the whole Ireland England poaching issue as

- Realistically not many Ireland players will be poached even if it were to become a huge issue
- If Ireland got increased funding, increased games and test cricket the problem disappears! FM players (in an ideal world where we are to become one) have to wait 4 years between switching, no Irish player will give up 4 years of regular well paid international cricket for a possible England cap or two.
- Afghanistan tbh with you don't even seem to need much more money, they've done a great job and will without any doubt be a top 8 team and full member in 10 years at the most, they won't be stopped. If they do get more money this process will accelerate.
- The smaller boards, if they mismanage funds and such under the new league systems, will have poor results as inevitably crap management trickles down into crap displays, therefore they may miss out on the odd WC which would seriously get their *** in gear re: acting professionally.

I don't have any issue with India getting more than anyone else, obviously thats only fair, but its the fact they want even more at the expense of the teams who need it most (at the bottom the pyramid) that irks me. There is no European U15/17 competition anymore for th Associates there, the Big 3 takeover killed that. The only underage tournament left in Europe to my knowledge is the u19 WC qualifier which is every 2 years. How can teams improve when the few underage competitions they had to test and identify talent get scrapped so the big boys can add another .01% to their revenue?? Thats only the example I know of, elsewhere in the world I'm sure teams had their already miniscule budgets totally gutted.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Thats an eligibility issue, change the rules and that issue can be solved without much hassle.

Also, my main issue and our main issue isn't England poaching, but rather the chronic lack of money and opportunities we get which leads to players leaving and England poaching instead. If Ireland had even half of Zimbabwe's cash we could guarantee whatever players we get 1) test cricket 2) regular cricket vs international teams and 3) a wage. None of which we can do atm because, you guessed it, the ICC doesn't give a damn, although tbf it has improved over the past year

Like I said in my previous post, if only money solved your problem. SA has more funds than Zimbabwe, it didn't stop SA players from moving to England for a better future. Smith retired at a prime age of 32, many more players are going there after proving their mettle at international level. Sure its just about eligibility issue, but why hasn't that changed? Morgan should be revolutionising Ireland LOI team, not England.

Anyway, I'll list the main issues I think affect smaller nations, you can list any I've left out.

1) Lack of games stemming from ICC indifference
2) Moronic WC layout of 10 teams, done to milk the Indian market. India complained when it got knocked out fair and square in 2007 (along with Pakistan tbf) and the ICC lost lots of money so the smaller teams essentially got shafted for playing well.
3) Lack of money. Associate funding got cut by around 170 million IIRC in the Big 3 takeover which, you guessed it, the BCCI supported.

Lack of games is definitely a concern, something that will only increase with associates now not being part of World cups. Perhaps Associates could be tagged along in the tours team take part in which I think already happens with England, however games could be increased.

WC layout is not BCCI's fault lol. ICC gets the revenue from CWC which is shared amongst nations, 2007 hurt everyone not just BCCI. It is in broadcasters best interest if India plays Pak and India gets most games for it to be a lucrative deal, as a result becomes lucrative for ICC and boards also. As for it being a 10 team event, thats ICC's short sightedness.

Sure less funding doesn't help development but tell me what those funds did for Associates in the 10 years before big 3 happened? Kenya reached SF in 2003, where were they in 2011 WC? Ireland beat Pak, SA in 2007, what have they done since then?

You know nobody is saying its solely India's fault, I apologise if I've come off that way, but to try and say the BCCI havent had a hand in it is foolish. When even a minute amount of the money India makes has the potential to completely transform cricket elsewhere, and they continue trying to get more and more and more, and take more and more and more, you really can see why people get fed up of India threatening and pulling its weight on a constant basis, and acting as if cricket would cease to exist without its generosity. Then you see Zimbabwe,West Indies,Sri Lanka blowing millions and millions of dollars, and the BCCI turn a blind eye to that, and then Indian fans try to claim the BCCI is acting from a pure "Its just business" pov?? Lol come on.

And I am not suggesting that BCCI is right and they are not at fault etc. All I am saying is BCCI is being made this big bad evil bully, while ICC and its other core members aren't really doing anything either to change the way cricket is run. This shake up is also merely about money being diverted elsewhere. Nothing good is going to come out of these changes. You wont see 20 teams competing next world cup or the one after that.

 

[USofA]

I agree that BCCI opposing doesn't help ICC restructuring but changes proposed by ICC are hardly going to solve any problems.

So India's cut goes down from 20% to 16%. How does ICC see to it that Ireland cricket develops and isn't just a breeding ground for county teams and England? Or Afghanistan for that matter becomes a competitive team in years to come?

Right now, all that is happening is, is looking to get more money into the pockets of smaller boards. If only money solved the whole problem.

Frankly I think the revenue sharing proposed is fair enough, BCCI still get a larger cut than most teams combined and rightly so. However what would hurt them most is when you club telecast rights, why would they be party to a deal less lucrative so that broadcasters pick up Bangladesh or Sri Lanka test series?

How will it make SLC or BCB for that matter work harder at improving their cricket and make themselves marketable?

Do you honestly think any of these recommendation are going to fix the issues?

Only good thing coming out of this from a viewer pov is the league system which will give more context to the meaningless bilaterals. Other than that, it just seems to me that its all about getting money out of BCCIs pockets into the smaller boards. And money ain't gonna fix your problems.

Excellent points. In fact I would pretty much guarantee that down the road that the extra 4% taken from BCCI will do nothing and people will still be crying for more money.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

I don't have any issue with India getting more than anyone else, obviously thats only fair, but its the fact they want even more at the expense of the teams who need it most (at the bottom the pyramid) that irks me. There is no European U15/17 competition anymore for th Associates there, the Big 3 takeover killed that. The only underage tournament left in Europe to my knowledge is the u19 WC qualifier which is every 2 years. How can teams improve when the few underage competitions they had to test and identify talent get scrapped so the big boys can add another .01% to their revenue?? Thats only the example I know of, elsewhere in the world I'm sure teams had their already miniscule budgets totally gutted.

I am all for BCCI getting a cut and that money going to programmes that actually develop cricket in nations like Ireland, Afghanistan, Nepal that have shown potential to be competitive teams, but handing over money isn't going to do it.

ICC needs to see through it that they are put to good use. One can hope, but with their track record I doubt they will follow through.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Like I said in my previous post, if only money solved your problem. SA has more funds than Zimbabwe, it didn't stop SA players from moving to England for a better future. Smith retired at a prime age of 32, many more players are going there after proving their mettle at international level. Sure its just about eligibility issue, but why hasn't that changed? Morgan should be revolutionising Ireland LOI team, not England.

SA's issue is with Kolpak's being scrapped after this year, hence why so many left recently to avail of it before the Kolpak agreement is wind down. Also, lets be honest, every SA player who left is better than any Ireland player, and since Ireland and England have a CTA (Common Travel Agreement) which predates the EU, even when our players go to counties, they don't have to sacrifice their Ireland commitments as the Saffers do.

Morgan isn't revolutionising Irelands team because with Ireland he'd get about 10 ODI games a year (up to 2 years ago it was 3-4 ODI games a year)and at a fraction of his current income. If Ireland got more money, to get more fixtures, play more formats and pay more, this wouldn't have been an issue. Morgan left an Ireland team in 2007 that could easily have fallen away after 1 good WC, Joyce left an Ireland team in 2005 that featured such glamorous fixtures like games vs Free Forresters XI, games which we'd often lose btw. Rankin left in 2012 as he was offered test cricket, got used, treated horrendously and spat out by England within 6 months. If anything his experience will put players off moving in future.


Lack of games is definitely a concern, something that will only increase with associates now not being part of World cups. Perhaps Associates could be tagged along in the tours team take part in which I think already happens with England, however games could be increased.

Man, after the 2015 WC was made FM only event a week after the 2011 WC, Ireland were promised minimum of 12 ODI's a year to make up for it. The decision was eventually overturned yet despite that in the 4 years between 2011 and 2015 Ireland got a whopping 8 ODI's vs Full Member's. 2 vs England, 1 vs Australia,1 vs West Indies, 2 vs Pakistan and 2 vs Sri Lanka. Why would you believe the number of games will increase now lol, besides that wouldn't even make up for it, WC's are absolutely everything for growing teams, if Kevin's 100 had been in a bilateral ODI it wouldn't have had half the impact it had here, trust me. WC's are absolutely everything, take it from someone who got converted to the game by one.

WC layout is not BCCI's fault lol. ICC gets the revenue from CWC which is shared amongst nations, 2007 hurt everyone not just BCCI. It is in broadcasters best interest if India plays Pak and India gets most games for it to be a lucrative deal, as a result becomes lucrative for ICC and boards also. As for it being a 10 team event, thats ICC's short sightedness.

Fair enough

Sure less funding doesn't help development but tell me what those funds did for Associates in the 10 years before big 3 happened? Kenya reached SF in 2003, where were they in 2011 WC? Ireland beat Pak, SA in 2007, what have they done since then?

Kenya had no domestic structure to speak of in 2003. Their success was based off of one freak generation of players in the 90's who mostly came from a single club and two families (Odoyo and Obuya's). Ireland have produced several players since the 2007 breakthrough, something Kenya never did.

Well in 2011 we beat England. in 2015 we outperformed England and beat the WI and Zimbabwe, beat Zimbabwe again in a tight ODI later that year in a 2-1 series loss in Africa.Beat the then WC champions the WI in a t20 in the WI in 2014. Tied with Pakistan in 2013 and could easily have won that series. Our performances last year weren't great but when we haven't had an A system to give young guys experience there will be some difficulty in letting them settle when they get called up. We also now have a FC domestic structure

Those funds btw culminated in Associate cricket now being stronger than its ever been in its history. Hong Kong,Ireland,Afghanistan,Netherlands are 4 teams who've beaten FM's in the past two years, when has that ever been the case before in cricket history? And thats with absolutely minimal opportunities.



And I am not suggesting that BCCI is right and they are not at fault etc. All I am saying is BCCI is being made this big bad evil bully, while ICC and its other core members aren't really doing anything either to change the way cricket is run. This shake up is also merely about money being diverted elsewhere. Nothing good is going to come out of these changes. You wont see 20 teams competing next world cup or the one after that.

I don't want 20 teams btw. 14-15 is the right amount between spreading the game and keeping the matches competitive.

 

[Thivagar]

Like I said in my previous post, if only money solved your problem. SA has more funds than Zimbabwe, it didn't stop SA players from moving to England for a better future. Smith retired at a prime age of 32, many more players are going there after proving their mettle at international level. Sure its just about eligibility issue, but why hasn't that changed? Morgan should be revolutionising Ireland LOI team, not England.



Lack of games is definitely a concern, something that will only increase with associates now not being part of World cups. Perhaps Associates could be tagged along in the tours team take part in which I think already happens with England, however games could be increased.

WC layout is not BCCI's fault lol. ICC gets the revenue from CWC which is shared amongst nations, 2007 hurt everyone not just BCCI. It is in broadcasters best interest if India plays Pak and India gets most games for it to be a lucrative deal, as a result becomes lucrative for ICC and boards also. As for it being a 10 team event, thats ICC's short sightedness.

Sure less funding doesn't help development but tell me what those funds did for Associates in the 10 years before big 3 happened? Kenya reached SF in 2003, where were they in 2011 WC? Ireland beat Pak, SA in 2007, what have they done since then?



And I am not suggesting that BCCI is right and they are not at fault etc. All I am saying is BCCI is being made this big bad evil bully, while ICC and its other core members aren't really doing anything either to change the way cricket is run. This shake up is also merely about money being diverted elsewhere. Nothing good is going to come out of these changes. You wont see 20 teams competing next world cup or the one after that.

WPOTW nominee right here. Don't even know what to say. How can it be BCCI's money when they didn't even have it in the first place ?

 

[Junaids]

I think that everyone has misread the OP's post.

The BCCI is not threatening to boycott the Champions' Trophy.

A sidelined former administrator, rendered ineligible by the Supreme Court case, is complaining that his replacements in charge of the BCCI are giving away the farm at the ICC meeting.

And he is saying that the BCCI will only be able to seize back so much of world cricket's power and money if it holds the cricket world hostage and extorts a ransom again, for example by threatening to boycott ICC events.

But he has completely misunderstood what is actually going on. The previous BCCI governance model required vast amounts of cash to buy state cricket association votes, and he thinks that that is still necessary.

But the world has changed - mainly thanks to the Indian Supreme Court. These people can no longer run Indian cricket, let alone hold the rest of the cricket world to ransom. And the rest of the ICC - even the ECB and Cricket Australia - is not just moving to reverse the Big Three governance model, but also to make scheduling multi-lateral and to pool TV rights to ensure that in the future the BCCI won't be able to hold the cricket world to ransom again.

50% of India's international cricket obligations are overseas - including 80% of ICC tournaments - and the reforms ensure that India can't seek to extort money for those obligations.

 

[R0H1T]

If my salary increase was to be to the detriment of the people I work with then yeah, I'd rather not take it tbh.

Agree with you re: the ICC being broke. Also agree this isn't solely the BCCI's blame, ECB and its ******** opposition to the Olympics also deserves ridicule. Difference is the ECB/CA seem to have seen some common sense in the past 12 months. The thing you aren't seeing is, the Woolf report was commissioned after the 2011 WC to specifically analyse and comment on the ICC's structure and actions, and it was scathing in its criticism. It was basically shelved by the ICC, the most powerful member of whom is....the BCCI. So how can you not see the link here lol, the BCCI aren't in charge of changing things, but they also oppose changing things. And its not exactly a secret that the BCB/ZCB/SLCB/WICB basically vote along the lines of India in return for a series or two on important issues, that was made blatantly obvious during the Big 3 negotiations. Point is, the ICC needs to restructure correct, thats what its trying to do right now, but its struggling because India doesn't want it to change because its completely selfish and doesn't care if the game gets hurt once it gets its money. Seriously how can you not see that. You're trying to paint the BCCI as some sort of entity forced to do what its done to get its way which is complete codswallop. How can the ICC restructure when India threatens it each and every time it tries to change itself??

An yet it's the ECB & the CA that wanted the CWC to be a ten nation event, CA didn't get it's wish in 2015 (due to BCCI) but the ECB sure did. You sure they have your best interests in mind?

This is all about money, asking for your fair share is fair IMO, if not then we should ask the US/EU/China to pay us for poverty alleviation as swell shouldn't we? Also what administrative change are ICC bringing, going back to the same vote mandate isn't changing anything. Do Ireland or Afghanistan get a seat at the table, seeing how they might be full test members come 2018? Do they get more handouts or have ICC thought of a plan to make them better, much better over a period of time especially in tests?

It's easy to side with the ECB/CA thinking they have well run professional setups, except when you get to know the collusion they've been involved in over the years. The rebel tours, not touring SC teams, ten team WC & the list goes on & on.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

An yet it's the ECB & the CA that wanted the CWC to be a ten nation event, CA didn't get it's wish in 2015 (due to BCCI) but the ECB sure did. You sure they have your best interests in mind?

This is all about money, asking for your fair share is fair IMO, if not then we should ask the US/EU/China to pay us for poverty alleviation as swell shouldn't we? Also what administrative change are ICC bringing, going back to the same vote mandate isn't changing anything. Do Ireland or Afghanistan get a seat at the table, seeing how they might be full test members come 2018? Do they get more handouts or have ICC thought of a plan to make them better, much better over a period of time especially in tests?

It's easy to side with the ECB/CA thinking they have well run professional setups, except when you get to know the collusion they've been involved in over the years. The rebel tours, not touring SC teams, ten team WC & the list goes on & on.

I'm under absolutely no illusions as to the ECB/CA being just as selfish when they need to be. Rest assured they aren't heroes in this.

 

[R0H1T]

I'm under absolutely no illusions as to the ECB/CA being just as selfish when they need to be. Rest assured they aren't heroes in this.

So again, if it's just about the money then any rejig is just as good as any other, I guess depending upon whether you get more money or less. If there isn't going to be any serious change in how the ICC handles it's affairs, or how they get more $ out of other countries, then why bother why this charade? If the other national boards, like SLC or Zim, are just going to sit on their backside & wait for handouts from the BCCI then why should we bother with this facade? Just give them more $ directly through the ICC, no need to tour them & no more silly games i.e. JAMODI or whatever.

 

[Messiah]

Who cares. Cricket has always been a dead game which only few countries play. Doesn't really matter about all this finance . Most boards are corrupt anyways from third world countries. Just enjoy the game.

 

[msb314]

It matters not to Pakistan Cricket.

We will forever remain incompetent and behind everyone else regardless of the revenue sharing model or FTP schedule.

Focus on developing school cricket, domestic cricket and employ seasoned cricketing professionals and ex-sportsman who happen to understand the modern game rather than 100 year old administrative dinosaurs who are out of touch with reality.

Everything else will fall into place.
[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]

 

[R0H1T]

Did these pensions and great pay and other things you describe only come into play in 2014 or did they exist before that??

If they existed before that then it shows that the BCCI have more than enough money to treat its cricketers well under the old revenue model i.e before they made a grab for 200 million extra dollars at the expense of virtually everyone else.

Smaller boards have got used to hand outs, agreed, but the problem isn't the hand-outs themselves, its the corruption and malpractice that these boards have become involved in. BCCI have done nothing to stop this , hell in Zimbabwe's case they encouraged it as [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION] pointed out. You rightfully claim that its not the BCCI's responsibility to stop this, correct, but when they suppress and encourage the corruption, again as Markhor pointed out, then its definitely the BCCI's responsibility since they arguably prevented it being fixed or being put in the spotlight.

How can the ICC make boards accountable when its a proxy of the BCCI, who let their friend boards like ZCB,SLCB get away with corruption and malpractice so long as they vote the BCCI's way?? I'm not even arguing for SL/WI to get more money, those boards are in a mess of their own creation, my concern is spreading cricket as a sport. The BCCI backed Big 3 model was a direct counter to that goal and the shrinking of the WC to milk the Indian TV market was also a complete slap in the face to the well managed Associate boards who've tirelessly worked under absolutely pitiful budgets to help the sport grow, and have faced absolutely no help from the ICC in doing so.

See my previous post on this page as well if you haven't either, this logic that cricket owes everything to the BCCI is foolish IMO because without international competition the BCCI income would be far smaller than it is, despite the IPL printing money.

The pensions were introduced well over a decade ago, I'm not sure how'd you come up with that arbitrary (since) 2014 figure ~ www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/134744.html

The system might have been expanded in recent years but if the Indian (ex) players & the state association employees aren't getting benefits of Indian money then really I don't see how PNG or China is entitled to our money!

Cricket doesn't owe anyone anything, cricket itself though is a sport, an obscure idea of a timepass/hobby if you will. Taking the argument further the Indian public don't owe you or anyone else anything either. The Indian ad money & broadcast $ is what drives the intl game, even BBL/CPL/Ram Slam to a (much) lesser extent.

You take India out of internationals, that $ 1.5~2 billion goes straight into something like an IPL or even domestic T20, LO, first class games. Now obviously not all of it will be diverted to cricket, some of it will go to hockey, tennis, football et al, the point being without Indian money there wouldn't be intl cricket as we know it today. So, why should we pay for corrupt SLC, Zim or any other board's execs? The world of cricket may not owe anything to the BCCI but it sure as hell owes much of it's glamour, razzmatazz, existence to the Indian paying public!

 

[Madplayer]

Why not? What is so bad in doing so? Demanding a rightful share of the pie is a problem for u people. Do u know the financial model of laliga, epl? In laliga, bundesliga top teams Like real, barca, bayern gets the lions share and uts upto teams to increase their revenues and not depend on hand outs.

Cricket is not socialist thing in which u take money from rich boards and distribute to poor bankrupt corrupt boards. How long u want handouts?

Cricket isnt la liga. It can only dream to come close to soccer in the foreseeable future. Soccer is popular all over the world. Cricket is the second most watched soorts because of subcontinent population. Cannot compare how things work in the two.

 

[street cricketer]

I don't agree with the why should we give our money argument of a few Indian posters. India forms by far the biggest market for cricket in the world. An overwhelming majority of cricket fans are from India and hence it plays a huge role in world cricket. India's population is so huge that it exceeds the combined total of many other countries playing cricket and when you combine it with a cricket crazy population, you have enormous potential. In contrast, cricket is not even the first sport in many other countries like England, New Zealand, etc., while it's simply dying in regions like the Caribbean. Like it or hate it, India's position is such that it decides the state of world cricket. When you have a country with such drastic difference in population and market size, it's natural that it would have great power in the commodity it markets. The only thing which might balance out things is if China suddenly becomes a cricket crazy nation overnight, which isn't happening anytime sooner.

I agree that cricket is not a charity. I hate to use the spiderman reference here, but with great power comes great responsibilities. When you wield so much power in one sport, you also have the responsibility to maintain the health of it. I don't think you can say no it isn't my job. Indian cricket in good health means world cricket in good health. And I don't think a slight reduction in revenues will kill off Indian cricket altogether. You have to spread the game at some point instead of playing endless bilaterals with Australia and England and you do that by including cricket in the Olympics, increasing the funding of the game in associate and affiliate nations. Afghanistan and Ireland have great potential and they could do with some more money and I think there is potential for growth in countries like Netherlands, PNG, Hong Kong, UAE, Oman, Nepal and even Japan. Sure I know I'm being a bit optimistic here but Afghanistan were languishing in the 5th division of the WCL about 10 years ago and were reeling from the destruction caused by the Afghan war and Taliban rule. People would have laughed their as* off if someone said to them that Afghanistan would be close to becoming a test nation 10 years down the line. Who knows, we might get an another Afghanistan story another 10 years down the line.

 

[Junaids]

I don't agree with the why should we give our money argument of a few Indian posters. India forms by far the biggest market for cricket in the world. An overwhelming majority of cricket fans are from India and hence it plays a huge role in world cricket. India's population is so huge that it exceeds the combined total of many other countries playing cricket and when you combine it with a cricket crazy population, you have enormous potential. In contrast, cricket is not even the first sport in many other countries like England, New Zealand, etc., while it's simply dying in regions like the Caribbean. Like it or hate it, India's position is such that it decides the state of world cricket. When you have a country with such drastic difference in population and market size, it's natural that it would have great power in the commodity it markets. The only thing which might balance out things is if China suddenly becomes a cricket crazy nation overnight, which isn't happening anytime sooner.

I agree that cricket is not a charity. I hate to use the spiderman reference here, but with great power comes great responsibilities. When you wield so much power in one sport, you also have the responsibility to maintain the health of it. I don't think you can say no it isn't my job. Indian cricket in good health means world cricket in good health. And I don't think a slight reduction in revenues will kill off Indian cricket altogether. You have to spread the game at some point instead of playing endless bilaterals with Australia and England and you do that by including cricket in the Olympics, increasing the funding of the game in associate and affiliate nations. Afghanistan and Ireland have great potential and they could do with some more money and I think there is potential for growth in countries like Netherlands, PNG, Hong Kong, UAE, Oman, Nepal and even Japan. Sure I know I'm being a bit optimistic here but Afghanistan were languishing in the 5th division of the WCL about 10 years ago and were reeling from the destruction caused by the Afghan war and Taliban rule. People would have laughed their as* off if someone said to them that Afghanistan would be close to becoming a test nation 10 years down the line. Who knows, we might get an another Afghanistan story another 10 years down the line.

With respect, I completely disagree.

Do you know which country's markets contribute the most to international football, both in TV rights and people who travel to World Cups?

England
Germany
USA - but they are Mexico fans mainly
Japan
South Korea

But of those countries, Germany is a football superpower, but even England is less important than Uruguay (population 3 million) and the Netherlands and Argentina.

The whole point of international sport is that each of the top six to eight countries ON THE PITCH in any given sports is as important as each other one.

In reality, India's importance is only greater than England's and Australia's or even Pakistan's while TV rights are sold on a country-by-country basis. The moment you have pooled rights and centralised scheduling, India is no more significant than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

And in sport that is the right way. At the last two World Cups, FIFA paid Uruguay (population 3 million, remember) more than England (population 65 million) because they performed better on the pitch.

India is in a perverse position at the moment. Its players are highly paid and in a world of unpooled TV rights it can use its economic muscle to subject cricket to a Protection Racket in a way that Japan cannot with football.

But its team is hopeless outside Asia, and nobody outside Asia would even notice the absence of anyone apart from Virat Kohli if they stopped playing Test cricket.

India is nominally the Number 1 Test cricket team currently, but when Ravindra Jadeja is the Number 2 ranked bowler in the world you know that home victories are inflating their standing.

The bottom line is that cricket actually doesn't need India at all. If they stormed out of the ICC and took with them Chris Lynn, Martin Guptill, Dave Warner and Chris Gayle to play a 6 month IPL every year, the cricket world would hardly notice.

India basically is done as a cricket superpower if pooled TV rights ever come in.

 

[cricket.mad]

With respect, I completely disagree.

Do you know which country's markets contribute the most to international football, both in TV rights and people who travel to World Cups?

England
Germany
USA - but they are Mexico fans mainly
Japan
South Korea

But of those countries, Germany is a football superpower, but even England is less important than Uruguay (population 3 million) and the Netherlands and Argentina.

The whole point of international sport is that each of the top six to eight countries ON THE PITCH in any given sports is as important as each other one.

In reality, India's importance is only greater than England's and Australia's or even Pakistan's while TV rights are sold on a country-by-country basis. The moment you have pooled rights and centralised scheduling, India is no more significant than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

And in sport that is the right way. At the last two World Cups, FIFA paid Uruguay (population 3 million, remember) more than England (population 65 million) because they performed better on the pitch.

India is in a perverse position at the moment. Its players are highly paid and in a world of unpooled TV rights it can use its economic muscle to subject cricket to a Protection Racket in a way that Japan cannot with football.

But its team is hopeless outside Asia, and nobody outside Asia would even notice the absence of anyone apart from Virat Kohli if they stopped playing Test cricket.

India is nominally the Number 1 Test cricket team currently, but when Ravindra Jadeja is the Number 2 ranked bowler in the world you know that home victories are inflating their standing.

The bottom line is that cricket actually doesn't need India at all. If they stormed out of the ICC and took with them Chris Lynn, Martin Guptill, Dave Warner and Chris Gayle to play a 6 month IPL every year, the cricket world would hardly notice.

India basically is done as a cricket superpower if pooled TV rights ever come in.

Ohh genius. ...is cricket noticed by anyone outside sub continent except some test oldies like you,who are after all are a miniscule minorities. .Big Big lol at your argument. .even hardcore pak supporters,who hate India, can't accept your argument

 

[Junaids]

Ohh genius. ...is cricket noticed by anyone outside sub continent except some test oldies like you,who are after all are a miniscule minorities. .Big Big lol at your argument. .even hardcore pak supporters,who hate India, can't accept your argument

As I've written, I'd like India to be a responsible cricket power. That's my preference.

But if not, to be honest I'd be happy if they walked out of the ICC and took with them the leading T20 players in world cricket. I wouldn't notice the difference.

 

[USofA]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], pooling TV rights would mean that the absolute power is shifted from BCCI to ICC. As they will control all money. This power will corrupt. Look at FIFA it is one of, if not the most corrupt sports body in the world. How does this change things. It only shifts it from BCCI to ICC, does it not? Or perhaps I am understanding it completely wrong.

 

[cricket.mad]

As I've written, I'd like India to be a responsible cricket power. That's my preference.

But if not, to be honest I'd be happy if they walked out of the ICC and took with them the leading T20 players in world cricket. I wouldn't notice the difference.

Nobody in this cricketing world cares about opinion of minuscule minorities like you..that's the real issue

 

[USofA]

As I've written, I'd like India to be a responsible cricket power. That's my preference.

But if not, to be honest I'd be happy if they walked out of the ICC and took with them the leading T20 players in world cricket. I wouldn't notice the difference.

I agree, the BCCI needs to be a responsible power. Unfortunately they are not and will continue to be that way. They will not walk away from the ICC either. Because they wield the power and getting away with whatever they want. People don't walk away in such a situation. It is just not in human nature, especially when it comes to power hungry people.

The change has to come from the other side. The question is, who is going to put their hand up.

 

[Junaids]

Nobody in this cricketing world cares about opinion of minuscule minorities like you..that's the real issue

I've been part of record Test crowds at Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney in recent months. Each with far bigger attendances than are ever seen for Tests in Asia nowadays.

I spent $1000 on tickets at each venue. Over $2000 on hotels at each venue apart from Brisbane, where I commuted.

So I'd argue that "Miniscule Minorities" like me make cricket into a highly lucrative sport for cricket boards, airlines and hotels.

I subscribe to every sports network in Australia. And for the months of the year when I'm in the USA I subscribe to Willow TV and Sling TV. I spend at least $1000 every year on cricket tickets. And at least $2000 per year on hotels and $500 on flights to watch cricket.

How much revenue do you deliver to cricket every year?

 

[cricket.mad]

I've been part of record Test crowds at Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney in recent months. Each with far bigger attendances than are ever seen for Tests in Asia nowadays.

I spent $1000 on tickets at each venue. Over $2000 on hotels at each venue apart from Brisbane, where I commuted.

So I'd argue that "Miniscule Minorities" like me make cricket into a highly lucrative sport for cricket boards, airlines and hotels.

I subscribe to every sports network in Australia. And for the months of the year when I'm in the USA I subscribe to Willow TV and Sling TV. I spend at least $1000 every year on cricket tickets. And at least $2000 per year on hotels and $500 on flights to watch cricket.

How much revenue do you deliver to cricket every year?

Well I spend approximately quarter of you on cricket per year to watch all ipl matches of my city team and also to watch most LOI''s that are played in south India. .but the point is ,even though you spend 3 quarters more than me for the game,you are out numbered at least by 1:100 by the spenders like me from India. .remember at least 100 times..so for anyone to hear out,people like 'us'matter more than people like 'you'...and you can inturn keep on propogating your ideas on Internet and day dream about the impending change,which will cater to your 'white' man priorities

 

[jagatk]

With respect, I completely disagree.

Do you know which country's markets contribute the most to international football, both in TV rights and people who travel to World Cups?

England
Germany
USA - but they are Mexico fans mainly
Japan
South Korea

But of those countries, Germany is a football superpower, but even England is less important than Uruguay (population 3 million) and the Netherlands and Argentina.

The whole point of international sport is that each of the top six to eight countries ON THE PITCH in any given sports is as important as each other one.

In reality, India's importance is only greater than England's and Australia's or even Pakistan's while TV rights are sold on a country-by-country basis. The moment you have pooled rights and centralised scheduling, India is no more significant than Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

And in sport that is the right way. At the last two World Cups, FIFA paid Uruguay (population 3 million, remember) more than England (population 65 million) because they performed better on the pitch.

India is in a perverse position at the moment. Its players are highly paid and in a world of unpooled TV rights it can use its economic muscle to subject cricket to a Protection Racket in a way that Japan cannot with football.

But its team is hopeless outside Asia, and nobody outside Asia would even notice the absence of anyone apart from Virat Kohli if they stopped playing Test cricket.

India is nominally the Number 1 Test cricket team currently, but when Ravindra Jadeja is the Number 2 ranked bowler in the world you know that home victories are inflating their standing.

The bottom line is that cricket actually doesn't need India at all. If they stormed out of the ICC and took with them Chris Lynn, Martin Guptill, Dave Warner and Chris Gayle to play a 6 month IPL every year, the cricket world would hardly notice.

India basically is done as a cricket superpower if pooled TV rights ever come in.

This has to one of the biggest bunch of rubbish written, for starters world cup and bilaterals are 2 different things genius, pooling of money that icc is talking about is pooling money received from bilaterals not world cup. For context, imagine combining say the telecast rights for j league which is the japanese football league and epl, first one very few care about while the latter is wanted by everybody. Are you telling me if it is combined suddenly j league and epl are same.

Also even if my some miracle the pooling thing happens it still will not dent india much, because it is only for overseas rights only, which means any series that happens in india still is bcci's money, also pooling money is not in icc's power it is something boards are doing for mutual benefits, which means bcci can stay out of it, which kills the idea then and there. Also the whole pooling thing is done mostly keeping indian market in mind, sort of forcing say star to buy nz vs bangladesh if it wants india series in nz, so you are still dependent on india as unless indians want to watch it you don't have a big enough market to sell it to which is why they are trying the pooling of rights.

Also good luck keeping icc or cricket running without india, ipl is the biggest t20 league, it pays money that no board or other t20 clubs can pay especially if you can't sell those in india, remember WSC, this would be WSC on steroids good luck keeping your players then.

I am not saying bcci should lord over others or always have its way, but is seems seriously ****** that it is bcci that keeps many boards from going under be it slc, wicb or zcb but it is the biggest evil in the cricket world, especially when people forget that when CA and ECB were the big boys they had veto powers something, bcci has never had nor tried to get. It was ECB and CA that wanted lesser no of teams in world cup while bcci wanted to keep the associates in but it is bcci that is bad, bcci brings the most money for icc but everyone wants to cut its share while giving money to other boards.

Forget bcci your dislike for them etc. imagine in a group if you earned 80% of what is earned by whole group but of the surplus amount after expenses you get 20% but everyone wants to reduce it further so as to give it to others, will you honestly give up your share magnanimously without putting up a fight.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Except its not "their" money, they don't own cricket. For all the money India draws people forget that without teams to tour or play against the BCCI would also lose revenue long term. Everyone seems to act like the BCCI are the generous charity givers but they never point that that part of the reason the BCCI are so wealthy is that they have teams to play against, if they pull out of the CT and play nobody, while the BCCI would still remain rich, do you think they'd make as much money as they do currently?

Plus when the richest boards continued enrichment comes at the expense of the teams who need that money the most then yes I do see the problem. You're looking at the situation through the eyes of an administrator, completely forgetting that their is more to sport than just business (although it plays a big part).

Why stop there, let the Big 3 take 95% of the revenue, watch the competitiveness of international cricket decrease hugely as a result and tell me that broadcasters will still be willing to pay 2.5 billion dollars for TV rights of ICC events with zero competitive value.

It is BCCIs money.When India tours other countries that is the most profitable tour for that country.You remove India from the equation and watch the value of the rights go down by 50-60%.No other team is this lucrative.

BCCI can pull out of CT and organise a domestic tournament with all Indian stars and players who are not part of CT and that tournament will have more eye balls n make more money than CT.

If a board brings 80% of revenues there is nothing wrong if it takes 20% of that.BCCI was once a poor board it has reached here through its own efforts and not by begging from anyone.Its not BCCI's responsibility to feed corrupt inefficient boards if it doesnt want to.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I've been part of record Test crowds at Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney in recent months. Each with far bigger attendances than are ever seen for Tests in Asia nowadays.

I spent $1000 on tickets at each venue. Over $2000 on hotels at each venue apart from Brisbane, where I commuted.

So I'd argue that "Miniscule Minorities" like me make cricket into a highly lucrative sport for cricket boards, airlines and hotels.

I subscribe to every sports network in Australia. And for the months of the year when I'm in the USA I subscribe to Willow TV and Sling TV. I spend at least $1000 every year on cricket tickets. And at least $2000 per year on hotels and $500 on flights to watch cricket.

How much revenue do you deliver to cricket every year?

LOL.You dont matter in the Indian Market and that is the most lucrative market in the world.So you can take your alleged contribution and throw it in the sea and the 80% of world crickets revenue will be unaffected

I can only laugh at your ignorance or may be arrogance.

Then again you once claimed that Tendulkar's agents hawked him to counties in 90s because he was in need of money but he didnt find any takers as the counties deemed him not good enough.

So i will let this go as a joke.

 

[Junaids]

This has to one of the biggest bunch of rubbish written, for starters world cup and bilaterals are 2 different things genius, pooling of money that icc is talking about is pooling money received from bilaterals not world cup. For context, imagine combining say the telecast rights for j league which is the japanese football league and epl, first one very few care about while the latter is wanted by everybody. Are you telling me if it is combined suddenly j league and epl are same.

Also even if my some miracle the pooling thing happens it still will not dent india much, because it is only for overseas rights only, which means any series that happens in india still is bcci's money, also pooling money is not in icc's power it is something boards are doing for mutual benefits, which means bcci can stay out of it, which kills the idea then and there. Also the whole pooling thing is done mostly keeping indian market in mind, sort of forcing say star to buy nz vs bangladesh if it wants india series in nz, so you are still dependent on india as unless indians want to watch it you don't have a big enough market to sell it to which is why they are trying the pooling of rights.

Also good luck keeping icc or cricket running without india, ipl is the biggest t20 league, it pays money that no board or other t20 clubs can pay especially if you can't sell those in india, remember WSC, this would be WSC on steroids good luck keeping your players then.

I am not saying bcci should lord over others or always have its way, but is seems seriously ****** that it is bcci that keeps many boards from going under be it slc, wicb or zcb but it is the biggest evil in the cricket world, especially when people forget that when CA and ECB were the big boys they had veto powers something, bcci has never had nor tried to get. It was ECB and CA that wanted lesser no of teams in world cup while bcci wanted to keep the associates in but it is bcci that is bad, bcci brings the most money for icc but everyone wants to cut its share while giving money to other boards.

Forget bcci your dislike for them etc. imagine in a group if you earned 80% of what is earned by whole group but of the surplus amount after expenses you get 20% but everyone wants to reduce it further so as to give it to others, will you honestly give up your share magnanimously without putting up a fight.

Except the BCCI doesn't do Diddly Squat to get all that money.

It is private Indian TV networks which bid large amounts to cover cricket. The BCCI is basically the pimp, not the wealth income generator.

I really like Shashank Manohar. I think he is the most exceptional cricket administrator of my lifetime, from any country. While the likes of Giles Clarke are sacrificing the future for a quick buck (hiding English cricket on channels hardly anyone can watch), Manohar stands tall as a man who is honourable and understands and respects his role as a Custodian of an Ancient Game.

 

[Junaids]

It is BCCIs money.When India tours other countries that is the most profitable tour for that country.You remove India from the equation and watch the value of the rights go down by 50-60%.No other team is this lucrative.

BCCI can pull out of CT and organise a domestic tournament with all Indian stars and players who are not part of CT and that tournament will have more eye balls n make more money than CT.

If a board brings 80% of revenues there is nothing wrong if it takes 20% of that.BCCI was once a poor board it has reached here through its own efforts and not by begging from anyone.Its not BCCI's responsibility to feed corrupt inefficient boards if it doesnt want to.

It's not the BCCI's money.

It's Indian TV's money.

Boards don't bring revenue. The UK World Cup TV rights bring FIFA more money than any other country apart from Germany, but that is money from the BBC and ITV television rights acquisitions, not The Football Association.

Which is why the English FA gets less money distributed to it from FIFA than Uruguay.

The BCCI's governance model has left it hungry for cash to pay for local votes so it tries to pass itself off as the generator of revenue for cricket. It's nothing of the sort. You could dissolve the BCCI tomorrow, and still Indian TV channels would pay the same amount for TV rights for Indian matches.

The BCCI adds precisely zero value.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It's not the BCCI's money.

It's Indian TV's money.

Boards don't bring revenue. The UK World Cup TV rights bring FIFA more money than any other country apart from Germany, but that is money from the BBC and ITV television rights acquisitions, not The Football Association.

Which is why the English FA gets less money distributed to it from FIFA than Uruguay.

The BCCI's governance model has left it hungry for cash to pay for local votes so it tries to pass itself off as the generator of revenue for cricket. It's nothing of the sort. You could dissolve the BCCI tomorrow, and still Indian TV channels would pay the same amount for TV rights for Indian matches.

The BCCI adds precisely zero value.

Indian Tv is because of Indian team and BCCI controls Indian Team.You can change BCCI's name to XYZ or ABC it wont matter.The organisation that controls Indian cricket will control the bulk of world crickets economy.You may not like it,but thats how i ts going to be.

 

[Junaids]

Indian Tv is because of Indian team and BCCI controls Indian Team.You can change BCCI's name to XYZ or ABC it wont matter.The organisation that controls Indian cricket will control the bulk of world crickets economy.You may not like it,but thats how i ts going to be.

This is where you and I disagree about World Series Cricket in the 1970's.

For those of us who lived through the period, Packer's SuperTests were the real Tests and the "official" ones were just a devalued sham - even though they were under the auspices of the "official" Australian Cricket Board.

The "official" governing body in a sport can change in the blink of an eye. We had Superleague v the Australian Rugby League in the late 1990s, and the same thing happened.

So the BCCI is really not needed for the Indian cricket team or Indian TV to thrive. It's in the lucky position of owning their rights now, but to be honest it's just a matter of time before a rich broadcaster seizes control of cricket. The only reason it hasn't occurred already is because of the age of Rupert Murdoch.

But it will happen.

 

[jagatk]

Except the BCCI doesn't do Diddly Squat to get all that money.

It is private Indian TV networks which bid large amounts to cover cricket. The BCCI is basically the pimp, not the wealth income generator.

I really like Shashank Manohar. I think he is the most exceptional cricket administrator of my lifetime, from any country. While the likes of Giles Clarke are sacrificing the future for a quick buck (hiding English cricket on channels hardly anyone can watch), Manohar stands tall as a man who is honourable and understands and respects his role as a Custodian of an Ancient Game.

You really don't understand do you, indian tv networks pay the big money because indians want to watch indian team which is governed by bcci, as we saw with 2007 world cup, indians don't care about others much they may watch an odd match here or there but take indian cricket team out of the equation and indian crowd and market goes with it.

Also you know didly squat about what bcci have done for indian cricket, they might not be a great organisation mired with controversies and conflicts but one cannot ignore what they have done for grass root cricket in india, today cricketer even if he isn't good enough to represent india can earn a respectable amount thanks to ipl and domestic cricket salaries which paid by bcci, they pay pensions to ex cricketers show me other boards that does that, womens cricket get pretty decent sums of money too, add to that likes of afghanistan cricket are helped directly by bcci, i am yet to read CA or ECB doing that, i am not saying they do it out of goodness of heart but rather so get some other help but then what is stopping others from doing the same, but they don't.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is where you and I disagree about World Series Cricket in the 1970's.

For those of us who lived through the period, Packer's SuperTests were the real Tests and the "official" ones were just a devalued sham - even though they were under the auspices of the "official" Australian Cricket Board.

The "official" governing body in a sport can change in the blink of an eye. We had Superleague v the Australian Rugby League in the late 1990s, and the same thing happened.

So the BCCI is really not needed for the Indian cricket team or Indian TV to thrive. It's in the lucky position of owning their rights now, but to be honest it's just a matter of time before a rich broadcaster seizes control of cricket. The only reason it hasn't occurred already is because of the age of Rupert Murdoch.

But it will happen.

LOL.India is not Australia so stop giving these stupid examples of Australia.A billionaire with tons of money tried to take on the BCCI he failed.

The BCCI is recognised by the govt as the official sports body,some rich broadcaster wont change that.BCCI comprises of some of the most powerful and rich men in India,for every Rupert Murdoch there will be a Ambani waiting to kick his butt out of the country.Even Narendra Modi was part of BCCI,and till this day Amit Shah is part of BCCI.

As i said i will take all this that you said as a joke it ought to be taken as.

 

[jagatk]

This is where you and I disagree about World Series Cricket in the 1970's.

For those of us who lived through the period, Packer's SuperTests were the real Tests and the "official" ones were just a devalued sham - even though they were under the auspices of the "official" Australian Cricket Board.

The "official" governing body in a sport can change in the blink of an eye. We had Superleague v the Australian Rugby League in the late 1990s, and the same thing happened.

So the BCCI is really not needed for the Indian cricket team or Indian TV to thrive. It's in the lucky position of owning their rights now, but to be honest it's just a matter of time before a rich broadcaster seizes control of cricket. The only reason it hasn't occurred already is because of the age of Rupert Murdoch.

But it will happen.

You really are deluded mate, World series is already present, it is called the IPL, which is owned by the bcci.

 

[IMMY69]

Everything related to Indian Cricket would be far more palatable if:-

Selfishly, the BCCI was non political and actually played Bi lateral games against Pakistan.

Allowed Pakistani players to play in the IPl.

Here's the crux. Allowed its own players to participate in the others leagues.

The last point actually tells you a lot about their mentality and in my opinion is indefensible.

Yet we have many nationalistic Indians who support this stance and are not willing to see the bigger picture. Cricket is a sport.

 

[Drreddymd]

Everything related to Indian Cricket would be far more palatable if:-

Selfishly, the BCCI was non political and actually played Bi lateral games against Pakistan.

Allowed Pakistani players to play in the IPl.

Here's the crux. Allowed its own players to participate in the others leagues.

The last point actually tells you a lot about their mentality and in my opinion is indefensible.

Yet we have many nationalistic Indians who support this stance and are not willing to see the bigger picture. Cricket is a sport.

Boycott was started first by pcb and u r preaching sermons now because u r missing the gravy train right? U should choose u r opponent wisely and make u r steps

 

[IMMY69]

He is the most deluded, nonsense sprouting troll of the highrst order in pak passion.

He doesnt seem to understand one thing that indian tv companies pay money to watch indian team and players perform and not other teams.

If indian players boycott or indian team Boycotts any tournament u will get peanuts for tv rights?

If Cricket is reliant on Indian TV revenue to survive then please do pull out of Tournaments. Let there be only cricket in India.

 

[Junaids]

You really don't understand do you, indian tv networks pay the big money because indians want to watch indian team which is governed by bcci, as we saw with 2007 world cup, indians don't care about others much they may watch an odd match here or there but take indian cricket team out of the equation and indian crowd and market goes with it.

Also you know didly squat about what bcci have done for indian cricket, they might not be a great organisation mired with controversies and conflicts but one cannot ignore what they have done for grass root cricket in india, today cricketer even if he isn't good enough to represent india can earn a respectable amount thanks to ipl and domestic cricket salaries which paid by bcci, they pay pensions to ex cricketers show me other boards that does that, womens cricket get pretty decent sums of money too, add to that likes of afghanistan cricket are helped directly by bcci, i am yet to read CA or ECB doing that, i am not saying they do it out of goodness of heart but rather so get some other help but then what is stopping others from doing the same, but they don't.

Sure, but you could actually do that without the boards at all.

Sooner or later a billionaire will come along and buy cricket like Kerry Packer did. And when he sets up his alternative to the ICC, you'll quickly learn that for everything from scheduling to tournaments to TV revenue to grassroots development to pensions for retired players, you don't need a BCCI or an ECB at all.

 

[IMMY69]

Boycott was started first by pcb and u r preaching sermons now because u r missing the gravy train right? U should choose u r opponent wisely and make u r steps

Conveniently skipping the "crux" of my statement

 

[Junaids]

If Cricket is reliant on Indian TV revenue to survive then please do pull out of Tournaments. Let there be only cricket in India.

The whole thread is unfair because the Supreme Court has driven the rogues and the chancers and the politicians out of the BCCI.

But what is the worst case scenario if they were to return?

We would lose Gayle, Guptill, McCullum, Warner and the like to a year-round IPL.

If Mitchell Starc stayed for Test cricket, instead of buying his second $5 million house by the age of 25 he would be in his first $3 million house, like a rugby league or Aussie Rules player.

I think we'd probably all be happy. Indians could watch their funny little game all year round, and would have teams full of second string South Africans and West Indians who would otherwise play county cricket.

And for the rest of us, our game would hardly change.

 

[Drreddymd]

If Cricket is reliant on Indian TV revenue to survive then please do pull out of Tournaments. Let there be only cricket in India.

It is. If indian team is not playing i bet not even 1 tv station will bid for icc rights

 

[cricketjoshila]

Everything related to Indian Cricket would be far more palatable if:-

Selfishly, the BCCI was non political and actually played Bi lateral games against Pakistan.

Allowed Pakistani players to play in the IPl.

Here's the crux. Allowed its own players to participate in the others leagues.

The last point actually tells you a lot about their mentality and in my opinion is indefensible.

Yet we have many nationalistic Indians who support this stance and are not willing to see the bigger picture. Cricket is a sport.

1.Pakistan started the trend.India is just giving it back.

2.Ask why Ijaz Butt refused to allow Pak Players in IPL 2009 and said India was unsafe.Tried to arm twist the BCCI.

3.BBL/MI T20 falls right in the Indian cricket season.Indians dont play in PSL for obvious reasons.June to September is when India tours other countries.Also Indian players are paid huge money to keep them exclusive.

Cricket is a sport and is also a enterprise which feeds many.It has to be run in that way.Pakistanis wont be complaining if BCCI was a poor board and Indian cricket economically poor.

 

[jagatk]

Everything related to Indian Cricket would be far more palatable if:-

Selfishly, the BCCI was non political and actually played Bi lateral games against Pakistan.

Allowed Pakistani players to play in the IPl.

Here's the crux. Allowed its own players to participate in the others leagues.

The last point actually tells you a lot about their mentality and in my opinion is indefensible.

Yet we have many nationalistic Indians who support this stance and are not willing to see the bigger picture. Cricket is a sport.

1. SC took care of politician problem in BCCI, bilaterals will still be a no go as GoI won't agree and indian public as a whole isn't exactly warm to the idea either.

2. See the first point to some extent and there frankly aren't good pakistani players, amir may be but there are lots of better foreigners without having the pain of right wing creating problems for the teams.

3. With amount of cricket being played most indian team players will sit out even if allowed, though i do think those who want to play should be allowed.

 

[cricketjoshila]

1. SC took care of politician problem in BCCI, bilaterals will still be a no go as GoI won't agree and indian public as a whole isn't exactly warm to the idea either.

2. See the first point to some extent and there frankly aren't good pakistani players, amir may be but there are lots of better foreigners without having the pain of right wing creating problems for the teams.

3. With amount of cricket being played most indian team players will sit out even if allowed, though i do think those who want to play should be allowed.

These SC reforms will not last as the AG has told the SC that GOI is bringing a new law on sports bodies.Secondly the present administrators only job is to see that elections happen and new BCCI office bearers come in and then they leave.

 

[Drreddymd]

The whole thread is unfair because the Supreme Court has driven the rogues and the chancers and the politicians out of the BCCI.

But what is the worst case scenario if they were to return?

We would lose Gayle, Guptill, McCullum, Warner and the like to a year-round IPL.

If Mitchell Starc stayed for Test cricket, instead of buying his second $5 million house by the age of 25 he would be in his first $3 million house, like a rugby league or Aussie Rules player.

I think we'd probably all be happy. Indians could watch their funny little game all year round, and would have teams full of second string South Africans and West Indians who would otherwise play county cricket.

And for the rest of us, our game would hardly change.

Yeah then do it. Go against bcci and boycott bcci from icc if u can. We can see how many boards side with bcci and how Many boards will stay in icc.

The boards are not fools like u because they know a single tour of india will make up for losses untill the next time bcci plays them again
I will tell u that nothing much will change in bcci as the supreme court said any administrator can work in state and bcci proper for 18 yrs and there are lot of guys from the present administration who are eligible to continue to work.

 

[Drreddymd]

Conveniently skipping the "crux" of my statement

That doesnt change the fact i posted isnt it?