India to take part in Champions Trophy; BCCI not to send legal notice to ICC [Update Post #86]

[SL_Fan]

BCCI is asking 6 times more coz they contribute 60 times more than others. Does is make sense when other boards contribute 1% and get 7% share?

Well most of the revenue from ICC tourneys come in from broadcasting rights and that’s sold by ICC as a package to the highest bidder. This cycle of ICC events from 2015-2023 for instance was sold to Star India and Star Middle East back in 2014. Obviously India’s participation would contribute most to that packaged amount but exactly what percentage I have no idea. I do not really buy this 70% talk tho haven’t seen any actual numbers to back that up. And even if it is 70% that’s around 20 times more than anyone else on average not 60 actually.

Anyways putting all that aside and looking at the bigger picture, the real issue here is that if you are going to divide the pie according to who brings what to the table then cricket would struggle in most places around the world. Eventually there will only be 4/5 decent teams left. So in that case there won’t even be any point in having ICC tourneys. Which is why everyone needs to get together and work out an equitable solution.

As for BCCI getting over six times that of everyone else that is certainly not an equitable solution. In fact before the Big 3 changes in 2014 BCCI actually used to receive the same share (ie 7.5%). And the offer currently on the table for BCCI is over 3.5 times that of everyone else. So BCCI certainly isn't getting the rough end of the stick as it’s propaganda machine would have you believe.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Interesting headline today in TOI

'BCCI backs down, India to defend Champions Trophy'

Won't go down well with some of our BCCI spokesperson here.

 

[MMHS]

We can very well live with the ICC. The ICC is an anachronistic organization and it has outlived its usefulness.

How long do you want India to continue in the ICC where countries contributing 1% or 2% have the same voting power as India which contributes 70%?

The only economically rational outcome is for India to dump ICC and take complete control of the money that is being produced in India. Otherwise money will keep flowing out of India.

When India plays a foreign country, that country will obviously share the money generated. But we don't need ICC sucking money out, the colonial days are long past.

Your theory of 70% is not only delusional, it has become hilarious actually. CoA is run by businessman, so are ICC - that's why they are not such deluded. BCCI people as well - that's why they are sending team, would have done so even for lower amount.

I was a bit busy last week, therefore couldn't follow every thread & the drama around this issue, but I have done my ball-park calculations, which actually indicates that Mr. Manohar was trying a BIG favor for BCCI - he was trying to do even bigger ($400mn+) favor, but BCCI once declining that, couldn't accept it - it would have been shameless even for BCCI standard, who are trying to bully out to eat up those amount ICC allocated for associates. And, they are doing dirty politics with smaller boards – “not cutting your pie, but help me to rob that amount from Associates, I’ll make it sweeter for you later”.


Now, coming to that 70% myth, let me try to bust it - my hunch is, there is a very little risk for ICC, that too after 2023, when the next bidding starts, considering the then situation of cricket economy. For this period, ICC could have offered 6.5% (or whatever, like every other Boards) & still BCCI would have accepted. Or other way -
their boycott actually would have benefited other boards (ICC). This is where, Mr. Manohor actually did a favor to BCCI - let me explain how.

How does ICC makes money from it’s events?

1. Broadcasting rights (live telecast & streams)
2. Endorsements (ground, kits, media & others)
3. Gate - Ticket sale (shared with the host)

Now, from the revenue sharing - let's make it simple by considering total ICC revenue to be $100 for this period. In BCCI proposed model, around $35 (35%) will go to BCCI - so, first clarification, as long as ICC earns more than $65, without IND (BCCI) participating, it's actually a net positive for other boards.

Coming to your claim of 70% contribution from India & without IND (BCCI), ICC will lose that entire amount ($70) - that's absolute rubbish myth. Even if we consider the null hypothesis that - without IND participating, no sponsors will come from IND & no NR Indian will watch/attend the games.

Why - again I am going back to the 3 sources of ICC's earning & let's see how much they are vulnerable - CONSIDERING null hypothesis : No Indian will have any interest without IND playing ICC events.

1. Broadcasting right is sold to Star Sports for a minimum number of matches, who'll pay ICC for the product as producer, then they'll make money by re-selling the feed to different country/channels & advertisement minutes - ICC won't lose a single penny even if IND withdraws, as long as they have a contract clause of guaranteed Indian participation. For example, PAK was almost out of CT in qualification stages, that could have been the case with IND as well, still can happen in 2021 event, therefore such contracts is never done on participation basis (ICC Can’t guarantee who’ll qualify).

Broadcasters & event owners work together to maximize money - if IND fails to qualify, Star Sports will definitely lose money in terms of reselling the feed (& ad minutes). To cover this phenomenon, ICC has restructured the WC format, to ensure major teams (not only IND), doesn't miss out early & every high profile duet is confirmed to be played.

NOW, if BCCI (IND) doesn't participate, it might have a negative consequence for 2023+ bid, the base price should go down for broadcasting rights. But, for this term, no changes in ICC end as far as broadcasting money is concerned. I AM SURE, Star Sports have covered their investment with proper insurance, so, in case of BCCI's withdrawal, they actually won't lose much either - it's the Insurance Company, which might get into ugly legal battles. But, as I said, if there is a chance of BCCI withdrawing Indian team from ICC events, ICC (& it's existing member) might get lower value for 2023-2031 period broadcasting rights - might, because that's also dependent of Cricket economy that time, but since 70% cricket viewer comes from India (or Indian), it's almost certain that broadcasters will start bidding from laser base.

2. The endorsement & other media interest - online, social media, grounds, kits & others are event specific, therefore subject to revenue loss, even this term (2015-2023) period, it'll suffer. BUT, not the way you are trying to portrait that with IND 100%, without 0%. Even, if I take a complete isolation of Indian community (both local & NRI), still endorsement money won't go to nil. For this CT, I don’t think it has any risk, because the rights are already sold – unless, ICC has sold it with a precondition that they’ll ensure Indian participation.

Coming back to No. 2, your claim is - 70% revenue comes from Indian companies (market) & that'll be ZERO without IND, which is delusional & ignorance. I can tell from my little bit of professional experience of strategy behind media buying or event management in such cases. Every event’s sponsorship (media, ground, shirt, online ..) goes to open bidding & the contract is given to the best bidder (not necessarily highest bidder), subject to some quality/quantity considerations. Now, since Indian market is larger, Indian brands are out-bidding any other bids, but it’s not that they are the only bidder, or every other bidder are from IND. Since, IND is playing, so Sahara or Reliance or Bharti ...... is bidding say $25 for the endorsement rights, but there are bids of $24, $23 .....$1 as well – not necessarily only from IND, it can come even from Nepal or Afghanistan. Might not be as rich as Indian Brand/Corporate bids, but I am sure the 2nd & 3rd bids are at least 80% of the winning bid. Besides, bids are often placed as a joint venture to compete with bigger brands (to counter ambush marketing), which does reduce the gap from top & 2nd bidder. It’s foolish to think that, if no Indian bid comes, Corporates of other countries won’t place their proposal.

For broadcasting rights as well – whatever Star has bidden (or will bid in 2023) to win the deal, there are definitely close bids from SKY, BBC, BT, Channel 9, SuperSports ……. even Gazi Tv also; it’ll be there in 2023 as well. Depending on cricket popularity, SKY/BT/Channel 9 can out bid Star as well – but, that doesn’t mean every money is coming from UK or AUS only – in any case, major money will come from IND, simply because of the volume - BUT, that's secondary money, which'll determine the initial bid size. ICC's revenue isn't dependent on where the feed is sold, once the primary deal is done.

Another factor in this equation is - Conglomerates operate on global basis - Tata or Sahara has investment in other cricket playing countries, therefore not necessarily, they'll withdraw from bidding in case of Indian isolation. Samsung sponsors Chelsea or IKEA sponsored Real – I can give hundreds of such examples, where global brads are beyond boundary. But, for the sake of argument, I take your logic - they'll say, "Mera Bharat Mahan - no India, no Indian bill board on ground" – so, some money will be lost (less earning) from this source.


3. The gate money - on field attendance. Yes, this one will suffer instantly - for those matches IND was supposed to play, that's if I take that, expat Indian will stay away from ICC events & return their ticket for the Indian matches. However, in such cases, it doesn't happen that, tickets remain unsold - what organizers (ICC)'ll have to do is lower the ticket price for an elasticity. I am sure, ICC (It’s event manager) has done their calculation of how much ticket price has to go down, in case of Indian boycott, for a 98%+ sell-out.

Somewhere I saw, but can't recall - average split from revenue source for such ICC events (actually every such global events) is 60% broadcast, 30% endorsement & 10% gate. These figures more or less are steady for cricket everywhere & I actually have seen in my professional career similar split (I used to do reverse calculation to allocate my budget, event/channel wise, based on TG, TRP & other indexes – but let’s leave it there). Say, in IND, ground attendance is high compared to UK, but unit price for ticket is much lower. Similarly, in IND there are more audience & channels, but per minute price is lower - therefore it's around same 60%+30%+10%. In our example it's $60, $30 & $10 earning for ICC.

Coming to the financials – let’s see how much ICC (eventually it’s members) is vulnerable, in case of BCCI boycott, for the period of 2015-2023

1. Broadcasting: 0%. Star Sports is legally bound to pay $60 for this period regardless of whoever qualifies or boycotts. However, as I said, if India's boycott is long-term, may be ICC won't get $60 from 2023-2031 periods, depending on the cricket economy of other markets that time.
2. Endorsements: Around 40% lower bid (My hunch is 25%, but I give 15% buffer). That's around $18 earning, instead of $30
3. Gate : Even considering 3rd generation Indian, who last time visited India with a British passport in last millennium won't turn out for any match in entire CT (not only matches that were involved IND), the price elasticity, I take 30% price drop to keep the ground at par in terms of attendance - that's $3 loss.

For a ball park figure, for 2015-23 period, without IND, ICC's possible revenue should stand around $60+$18+$7 = $85. This is subject to the mix of revenue source (60%, 30%, 10%) – for your comfort, I am making it 50%, 40% & 10% (giving more weight-age to 2nd one, which is most vulnerable), that earning stands at $40+$24+$7 = $71. Considering IND not participating, HENCE NOT GETTING ANY SHARE, that's straight $35 save (they are demanding 35%) - this gives me a buffer of around $20 ($6 in 2nd scenario), in net positive gain, in case of BCCI withdrawal. Therefore, as I said earlier that Manohar is actually offering BCCI an undue share. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] telling every time regarding handouts, is quite right. Add to that the hosting right of 2023 WC - I am 100% sure that, even if the split is equal with ZIMBok board, BCCI won't withdraw participation.

The first part was direct financial impact. Let's think about hypothetical scenario of 8 months IPL & IND (BCCI) Spoiling world cricket by hiring top players from every country. I don't see that one feasible either, if all other boards remain strong. Let me explain this one with a null hypothesis of 1.3bn Indian singing Mera Bharat Mahan & enjoying IPL for 8 months. AND, this is considering that every bilateral series with IND is on & BCCI still can bully smaller boards with promise of short tours.

- Once, BCCI starts 8 months IPL with obnoxious amount, basically they are hiring players out of central contract. This means, non-Indian players are restricted only to IPL & no other franchise leagues (as long as other boards are strong), or at least not in leagues arranged by ECB, CA, CSAF & PCB. This time, it’s a trade-off between IPL vs, at least 3 other high earning Leagues combined + central contracts for respective boards. Hypothetically, let’s take that IPL is covering that financial loss for Jo Root or Steve Smith – now, we’ll have to calculate, what’ll be IPL out flow of cash expenses in that case & what should be their earning (inflow) to remain in business.

- BCCI doesn't allow it's players to other leagues & don't call PAK players, therefore, major 4 boards will block their central contracted players from IPL. In fact, regardless of BCCI withdrawal from ICC events or not, ECB won’t allow it’s central contracted players to participate in IPL, if Indian players are not allowed in their mega league – simple reason is, ECB (& their broadcaster) can’t milk Indian market, if there is no Indian players. Now, ECB is allowing Roots & Morgans & Stokes to play in IPL unconditionally, because they don’t have a bargain chip – add ECB T20 League in the mix, with central contract, it’s not one sided any more. Make it 8 months IPL, limited International cricket & no other major Franchise League – forget it, even PCB, CSAF & CA will have bargaining chips. Players playing for IPL window now, because their boards are allowing – if the stand point comes either IPL or every other contracts, I am sure players will do their maths to figure out what should be annual salary at IPL to cover the career.

- Even, if I consider a 20 team IPL, which in terms of cricket quality won't be far better than Faisal Bank T20, but I take that Indian's will watch that IPL as well with same passion for the gana-bazana & Mera Bharat Mahan feeling - it's not financially viable to ensure 100+ foreigners enough money to cover for a career for 2 decades without other leagues & central contracts. It'll work for some West Indians, Zimboks, Kiwis, Lankas, may be BD players - but won’t with top AUS, ENG, PAK & SAF players, for the reason I have mentioned above. However, I am not sure if every of 20 IPL teams plays 2/3 BD/ZIMBok players out of 4 foreigners & half the rest squad with Ranji stars, how much Gana-bazana would keep Indian passion high from that Mera Bharat Mahan feeling.

The bottom line is, BCCI can't run IPL successfully (financially) without at least support from 4 other boards with domestic cricket resources only - ECB, CA, PCB & USAF. Add BCB in that (Simple reason - 2/3 BD players playing in IPL now, it can go to 10/12, but these players are putting every egg in one basket of IPL, which is on annual contract) - 20 team IPL will be worthy watching for 9 months indeed.
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION], [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], [MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION]

Guys, I have deliberately avoided tagging any Indian, BD, PAK or Lankan posters here for obvious reasons (BUT, THEY ARE WELCOME TO PUT THEIR VIEWS on this) - I would appreciate, if you go through this & put your thoughts.

I might be wrong with the financials as well – BUT, my stand is, being Indian, Mr. Manohar had given a big corridor for BCCI to steal undue money (& 2023 WC hosting rights), they actually would have sent team for an equal share as well.

 

[MMHS]

Your theory of 70% is not only delusional, it has become hilarious actually. CoA is run by businessman, so are ICC - that's why they are not such deluded. BCCI people as well - that's why they are sending team, would have done so even for lower amount.

I was a bit busy last week, therefore couldn't follow every thread & the drama around this issue, but I have done my ball-park calculations, which actually indicates that Mr. Manohar was trying a BIG favor for BCCI - he was trying to do even bigger ($400mn+) favor, but BCCI once declining that, couldn't accept it - it would have been shameless even for BCCI standard, who are trying to bully out to eat up those amount ICC allocated for associates. And, they are doing dirty politics with smaller boards – “not cutting your pie, but help me to rob that amount from Associates, I’ll make it sweeter for you later”.


Now, coming to that 70% myth, let me try to bust it - my hunch is, there is a very little risk for ICC, that too after 2023, when the next bidding starts, considering the then situation of cricket economy. For this period, ICC could have offered 6.5% (or whatever, like every other Boards) & still BCCI would have accepted. Or other way -
their boycott actually would have benefited other boards (ICC). This is where, Mr. Manohor actually did a favor to BCCI - let me explain how.

How does ICC makes money from it’s events?

1. Broadcasting rights (live telecast & streams)
2. Endorsements (ground, kits, media & others)
3. Gate - Ticket sale (shared with the host)

Now, from the revenue sharing - let's make it simple by considering total ICC revenue to be $100 for this period. In BCCI proposed model, around $35 (35%) will go to BCCI - so, first clarification, as long as ICC earns more than $65, without IND (BCCI) participating, it's actually a net positive for other boards.

Coming to your claim of 70% contribution from India & without IND (BCCI), ICC will lose that entire amount ($70) - that's absolute rubbish myth. Even if we consider the null hypothesis that - without IND participating, no sponsors will come from IND & no NR Indian will watch/attend the games.

Why - again I am going back to the 3 sources of ICC's earning & let's see how much they are vulnerable - CONSIDERING null hypothesis : No Indian will have any interest without IND playing ICC events.

1. Broadcasting right is sold to Star Sports for a minimum number of matches, who'll pay ICC for the product as producer, then they'll make money by re-selling the feed to different country/channels & advertisement minutes - ICC won't lose a single penny even if IND withdraws, as long as they have a contract clause of guaranteed Indian participation. For example, PAK was almost out of CT in qualification stages, that could have been the case with IND as well, still can happen in 2021 event, therefore such contracts is never done on participation basis (ICC Can’t guarantee who’ll qualify).

Broadcasters & event owners work together to maximize money - if IND fails to qualify, Star Sports will definitely lose money in terms of reselling the feed (& ad minutes). To cover this phenomenon, ICC has restructured the WC format, to ensure major teams (not only IND), doesn't miss out early & every high profile duet is confirmed to be played.

NOW, if BCCI (IND) doesn't participate, it might have a negative consequence for 2023+ bid, the base price should go down for broadcasting rights. But, for this term, no changes in ICC end as far as broadcasting money is concerned. I AM SURE, Star Sports have covered their investment with proper insurance, so, in case of BCCI's withdrawal, they actually won't lose much either - it's the Insurance Company, which might get into ugly legal battles. But, as I said, if there is a chance of BCCI withdrawing Indian team from ICC events, ICC (& it's existing member) might get lower value for 2023-2031 period broadcasting rights - might, because that's also dependent of Cricket economy that time, but since 70% cricket viewer comes from India (or Indian), it's almost certain that broadcasters will start bidding from laser base.

2. The endorsement & other media interest - online, social media, grounds, kits & others are event specific, therefore subject to revenue loss, even this term (2015-2023) period, it'll suffer. BUT, not the way you are trying to portrait that with IND 100%, without 0%. Even, if I take a complete isolation of Indian community (both local & NRI), still endorsement money won't go to nil. For this CT, I don’t think it has any risk, because the rights are already sold – unless, ICC has sold it with a precondition that they’ll ensure Indian participation.

Coming back to No. 2, your claim is - 70% revenue comes from Indian companies (market) & that'll be ZERO without IND, which is delusional & ignorance. I can tell from my little bit of professional experience of strategy behind media buying or event management in such cases. Every event’s sponsorship (media, ground, shirt, online ..) goes to open bidding & the contract is given to the best bidder (not necessarily highest bidder), subject to some quality/quantity considerations. Now, since Indian market is larger, Indian brands are out-bidding any other bids, but it’s not that they are the only bidder, or every other bidder are from IND. Since, IND is playing, so Sahara or Reliance or Bharti ...... is bidding say $25 for the endorsement rights, but there are bids of $24, $23 .....$1 as well – not necessarily only from IND, it can come even from Nepal or Afghanistan. Might not be as rich as Indian Brand/Corporate bids, but I am sure the 2nd & 3rd bids are at least 80% of the winning bid. Besides, bids are often placed as a joint venture to compete with bigger brands (to counter ambush marketing), which does reduce the gap from top & 2nd bidder. It’s foolish to think that, if no Indian bid comes, Corporates of other countries won’t place their proposal.

For broadcasting rights as well – whatever Star has bidden (or will bid in 2023) to win the deal, there are definitely close bids from SKY, BBC, BT, Channel 9, SuperSports ……. even Gazi Tv also; it’ll be there in 2023 as well. Depending on cricket popularity, SKY/BT/Channel 9 can out bid Star as well – but, that doesn’t mean every money is coming from UK or AUS only – in any case, major money will come from IND, simply because of the volume - BUT, that's secondary money, which'll determine the initial bid size. ICC's revenue isn't dependent on where the feed is sold, once the primary deal is done.

Another factor in this equation is - Conglomerates operate on global basis - Tata or Sahara has investment in other cricket playing countries, therefore not necessarily, they'll withdraw from bidding in case of Indian isolation. Samsung sponsors Chelsea or IKEA sponsored Real – I can give hundreds of such examples, where global brads are beyond boundary. But, for the sake of argument, I take your logic - they'll say, "Mera Bharat Mahan - no India, no Indian bill board on ground" – so, some money will be lost (less earning) from this source.


3. The gate money - on field attendance. Yes, this one will suffer instantly - for those matches IND was supposed to play, that's if I take that, expat Indian will stay away from ICC events & return their ticket for the Indian matches. However, in such cases, it doesn't happen that, tickets remain unsold - what organizers (ICC)'ll have to do is lower the ticket price for an elasticity. I am sure, ICC (It’s event manager) has done their calculation of how much ticket price has to go down, in case of Indian boycott, for a 98%+ sell-out.

Somewhere I saw, but can't recall - average split from revenue source for such ICC events (actually every such global events) is 60% broadcast, 30% endorsement & 10% gate. These figures more or less are steady for cricket everywhere & I actually have seen in my professional career similar split (I used to do reverse calculation to allocate my budget, event/channel wise, based on TG, TRP & other indexes – but let’s leave it there). Say, in IND, ground attendance is high compared to UK, but unit price for ticket is much lower. Similarly, in IND there are more audience & channels, but per minute price is lower - therefore it's around same 60%+30%+10%. In our example it's $60, $30 & $10 earning for ICC.

Coming to the financials – let’s see how much ICC (eventually it’s members) is vulnerable, in case of BCCI boycott, for the period of 2015-2023

1. Broadcasting: 0%. Star Sports is legally bound to pay $60 for this period regardless of whoever qualifies or boycotts. However, as I said, if India's boycott is long-term, may be ICC won't get $60 from 2023-2031 periods, depending on the cricket economy of other markets that time.
2. Endorsements: Around 40% lower bid (My hunch is 25%, but I give 15% buffer). That's around $18 earning, instead of $30
3. Gate : Even considering 3rd generation Indian, who last time visited India with a British passport in last millennium won't turn out for any match in entire CT (not only matches that were involved IND), the price elasticity, I take 30% price drop to keep the ground at par in terms of attendance - that's $3 loss.

For a ball park figure, for 2015-23 period, without IND, ICC's possible revenue should stand around $60+$18+$7 = $85. This is subject to the mix of revenue source (60%, 30%, 10%) – for your comfort, I am making it 50%, 40% & 10% (giving more weight-age to 2nd one, which is most vulnerable), that earning stands at $40+$24+$7 = $71. Considering IND not participating, HENCE NOT GETTING ANY SHARE, that's straight $35 save (they are demanding 35%) - this gives me a buffer of around $20 ($6 in 2nd scenario), in net positive gain, in case of BCCI withdrawal. Therefore, as I said earlier that Manohar is actually offering BCCI an undue share. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] telling every time regarding handouts, is quite right. Add to that the hosting right of 2023 WC - I am 100% sure that, even if the split is equal with ZIMBok board, BCCI won't withdraw participation.

The first part was direct financial impact. Let's think about hypothetical scenario of 8 months IPL & IND (BCCI) Spoiling world cricket by hiring top players from every country. I don't see that one feasible either, if all other boards remain strong. Let me explain this one with a null hypothesis of 1.3bn Indian singing Mera Bharat Mahan & enjoying IPL for 8 months. AND, this is considering that every bilateral series with IND is on & BCCI still can bully smaller boards with promise of short tours.

- Once, BCCI starts 8 months IPL with obnoxious amount, basically they are hiring players out of central contract. This means, non-Indian players are restricted only to IPL & no other franchise leagues (as long as other boards are strong), or at least not in leagues arranged by ECB, CA, CSAF & PCB. This time, it’s a trade-off between IPL vs, at least 3 other high earning Leagues combined + central contracts for respective boards. Hypothetically, let’s take that IPL is covering that financial loss for Jo Root or Steve Smith – now, we’ll have to calculate, what’ll be IPL out flow of cash expenses in that case & what should be their earning (inflow) to remain in business.

- BCCI doesn't allow it's players to other leagues & don't call PAK players, therefore, major 4 boards will block their central contracted players from IPL. In fact, regardless of BCCI withdrawal from ICC events or not, ECB won’t allow it’s central contracted players to participate in IPL, if Indian players are not allowed in their mega league – simple reason is, ECB (& their broadcaster) can’t milk Indian market, if there is no Indian players. Now, ECB is allowing Roots & Morgans & Stokes to play in IPL unconditionally, because they don’t have a bargain chip – add ECB T20 League in the mix, with central contract, it’s not one sided any more. Make it 8 months IPL, limited International cricket & no other major Franchise League – forget it, even PCB, CSAF & CA will have bargaining chips. Players playing for IPL window now, because their boards are allowing – if the stand point comes either IPL or every other contracts, I am sure players will do their maths to figure out what should be annual salary at IPL to cover the career.

- Even, if I consider a 20 team IPL, which in terms of cricket quality won't be far better than Faisal Bank T20, but I take that Indian's will watch that IPL as well with same passion for the gana-bazana & Mera Bharat Mahan feeling - it's not financially viable to ensure 100+ foreigners enough money to cover for a career for 2 decades without other leagues & central contracts. It'll work for some West Indians, Zimboks, Kiwis, Lankas, may be BD players - but won’t with top AUS, ENG, PAK & SAF players, for the reason I have mentioned above. However, I am not sure if every of 20 IPL teams plays 2/3 BD/ZIMBok players out of 4 foreigners & half the rest squad with Ranji stars, how much Gana-bazana would keep Indian passion high from that Mera Bharat Mahan feeling.

The bottom line is, BCCI can't run IPL successfully (financially) without at least support from 4 other boards with domestic cricket resources only - ECB, CA, PCB & USAF. Add BCB in that (Simple reason - 2/3 BD players playing in IPL now, it can go to 10/12, but these players are putting every egg in one basket of IPL, which is on annual contract) - 20 team IPL will be worthy watching for 9 months indeed.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION], [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], [MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION]

Guys, I have deliberately avoided tagging any Indian, BD, PAK or Lankan posters here for obvious reasons (BUT, THEY ARE WELCOME TO PUT THEIR VIEWS on this) - I would appreciate, if you go through this & put your thoughts.

I might be wrong with the financials as well – BUT, my stand is, being Indian, Mr. Manohar had given a big corridor for BCCI to steal undue money (& 2023 WC hosting rights), they actually would have sent team for an equal share as well.

I forgot to add one more major issue regarding 8 months IPL.

It's about available time for hosting other cricket - in marketing terms, we call it cannibalization factor. Even, for a non stop 12 months cricket (which is impossible any where in world, but let's consider BCCI will build 10 indoor stadiums to play in monsoon as well), 8 months IPL means, there are only 4 months left for non IPL Cricket, say bilateral. If I split that to half that's 8 weeks in a year for hosting Internationals. Because, I am sure, no other board will agree that they'll tour only IND so that BCCI can earns from No. 1, 2 & 3 sources & they get match fees.

I am sure, still BCCI's highest earning is from hosting bilateral. In case of 8 months IPL to be financially viable - it has to cover the revenue loss (sunk cost) from the lack of domestic tours. And, the bilateral tours are reciprocal - even ZIMBok board won't agree that IND will tour for 1 Test & they'll will return fro 3 Test, 5 ODI...... ECB, CA, CSAF, PCB will ask for equal number of matches - that means in every 4 years once - 2 Test & 3 ODI tour of AUS, ENG, SAF, PAK & an a reverse. And, no cricket ever with other countries (since IND won't play in ICC events, while 2 months domestic window doesn't allow looking beyond 3/4 teams).

All these leads to a Question - can 20 team IPL, replace a domestic season of hosting NZ, ENG, BD, AUS in 6 months, in terms of final bucks?

The more I look into it, the more I do feel that Mr. Manohar has some undue favor - that hand-out should have been equal.

 

[Pakpak]

Your theory of 70% is not only delusional, it has become hilarious actually. CoA is run by businessman, so are ICC - that's why they are not such deluded. BCCI people as well - that's why they are sending team, would have done so even for lower amount.

I was a bit busy last week, therefore couldn't follow every thread & the drama around this issue, but I have done my ball-park calculations, which actually indicates that Mr. Manohar was trying a BIG favor for BCCI - he was trying to do even bigger ($400mn+) favor, but BCCI once declining that, couldn't accept it - it would have been shameless even for BCCI standard, who are trying to bully out to eat up those amount ICC allocated for associates. And, they are doing dirty politics with smaller boards – “not cutting your pie, but help me to rob that amount from Associates, I’ll make it sweeter for you later”.


Now, coming to that 70% myth, let me try to bust it - my hunch is, there is a very little risk for ICC, that too after 2023, when the next bidding starts, considering the then situation of cricket economy. For this period, ICC could have offered 6.5% (or whatever, like every other Boards) & still BCCI would have accepted. Or other way -
their boycott actually would have benefited other boards (ICC). This is where, Mr. Manohor actually did a favor to BCCI - let me explain how.

How does ICC makes money from it’s events?

1. Broadcasting rights (live telecast & streams)
2. Endorsements (ground, kits, media & others)
3. Gate - Ticket sale (shared with the host)

Now, from the revenue sharing - let's make it simple by considering total ICC revenue to be $100 for this period. In BCCI proposed model, around $35 (35%) will go to BCCI - so, first clarification, as long as ICC earns more than $65, without IND (BCCI) participating, it's actually a net positive for other boards.

Coming to your claim of 70% contribution from India & without IND (BCCI), ICC will lose that entire amount ($70) - that's absolute rubbish myth. Even if we consider the null hypothesis that - without IND participating, no sponsors will come from IND & no NR Indian will watch/attend the games.

Why - again I am going back to the 3 sources of ICC's earning & let's see how much they are vulnerable - CONSIDERING null hypothesis : No Indian will have any interest without IND playing ICC events.

1. Broadcasting right is sold to Star Sports for a minimum number of matches, who'll pay ICC for the product as producer, then they'll make money by re-selling the feed to different country/channels & advertisement minutes - ICC won't lose a single penny even if IND withdraws, as long as they have a contract clause of guaranteed Indian participation. For example, PAK was almost out of CT in qualification stages, that could have been the case with IND as well, still can happen in 2021 event, therefore such contracts is never done on participation basis (ICC Can’t guarantee who’ll qualify).

Broadcasters & event owners work together to maximize money - if IND fails to qualify, Star Sports will definitely lose money in terms of reselling the feed (& ad minutes). To cover this phenomenon, ICC has restructured the WC format, to ensure major teams (not only IND), doesn't miss out early & every high profile duet is confirmed to be played.

NOW, if BCCI (IND) doesn't participate, it might have a negative consequence for 2023+ bid, the base price should go down for broadcasting rights. But, for this term, no changes in ICC end as far as broadcasting money is concerned. I AM SURE, Star Sports have covered their investment with proper insurance, so, in case of BCCI's withdrawal, they actually won't lose much either - it's the Insurance Company, which might get into ugly legal battles. But, as I said, if there is a chance of BCCI withdrawing Indian team from ICC events, ICC (& it's existing member) might get lower value for 2023-2031 period broadcasting rights - might, because that's also dependent of Cricket economy that time, but since 70% cricket viewer comes from India (or Indian), it's almost certain that broadcasters will start bidding from laser base.

2. The endorsement & other media interest - online, social media, grounds, kits & others are event specific, therefore subject to revenue loss, even this term (2015-2023) period, it'll suffer. BUT, not the way you are trying to portrait that with IND 100%, without 0%. Even, if I take a complete isolation of Indian community (both local & NRI), still endorsement money won't go to nil. For this CT, I don’t think it has any risk, because the rights are already sold – unless, ICC has sold it with a precondition that they’ll ensure Indian participation.

Coming back to No. 2, your claim is - 70% revenue comes from Indian companies (market) & that'll be ZERO without IND, which is delusional & ignorance. I can tell from my little bit of professional experience of strategy behind media buying or event management in such cases. Every event’s sponsorship (media, ground, shirt, online ..) goes to open bidding & the contract is given to the best bidder (not necessarily highest bidder), subject to some quality/quantity considerations. Now, since Indian market is larger, Indian brands are out-bidding any other bids, but it’s not that they are the only bidder, or every other bidder are from IND. Since, IND is playing, so Sahara or Reliance or Bharti ...... is bidding say $25 for the endorsement rights, but there are bids of $24, $23 .....$1 as well – not necessarily only from IND, it can come even from Nepal or Afghanistan. Might not be as rich as Indian Brand/Corporate bids, but I am sure the 2nd & 3rd bids are at least 80% of the winning bid. Besides, bids are often placed as a joint venture to compete with bigger brands (to counter ambush marketing), which does reduce the gap from top & 2nd bidder. It’s foolish to think that, if no Indian bid comes, Corporates of other countries won’t place their proposal.

For broadcasting rights as well – whatever Star has bidden (or will bid in 2023) to win the deal, there are definitely close bids from SKY, BBC, BT, Channel 9, SuperSports ……. even Gazi Tv also; it’ll be there in 2023 as well. Depending on cricket popularity, SKY/BT/Channel 9 can out bid Star as well – but, that doesn’t mean every money is coming from UK or AUS only – in any case, major money will come from IND, simply because of the volume - BUT, that's secondary money, which'll determine the initial bid size. ICC's revenue isn't dependent on where the feed is sold, once the primary deal is done.

Another factor in this equation is - Conglomerates operate on global basis - Tata or Sahara has investment in other cricket playing countries, therefore not necessarily, they'll withdraw from bidding in case of Indian isolation. Samsung sponsors Chelsea or IKEA sponsored Real – I can give hundreds of such examples, where global brads are beyond boundary. But, for the sake of argument, I take your logic - they'll say, "Mera Bharat Mahan - no India, no Indian bill board on ground" – so, some money will be lost (less earning) from this source.


3. The gate money - on field attendance. Yes, this one will suffer instantly - for those matches IND was supposed to play, that's if I take that, expat Indian will stay away from ICC events & return their ticket for the Indian matches. However, in such cases, it doesn't happen that, tickets remain unsold - what organizers (ICC)'ll have to do is lower the ticket price for an elasticity. I am sure, ICC (It’s event manager) has done their calculation of how much ticket price has to go down, in case of Indian boycott, for a 98%+ sell-out.

Somewhere I saw, but can't recall - average split from revenue source for such ICC events (actually every such global events) is 60% broadcast, 30% endorsement & 10% gate. These figures more or less are steady for cricket everywhere & I actually have seen in my professional career similar split (I used to do reverse calculation to allocate my budget, event/channel wise, based on TG, TRP & other indexes – but let’s leave it there). Say, in IND, ground attendance is high compared to UK, but unit price for ticket is much lower. Similarly, in IND there are more audience & channels, but per minute price is lower - therefore it's around same 60%+30%+10%. In our example it's $60, $30 & $10 earning for ICC.

Coming to the financials – let’s see how much ICC (eventually it’s members) is vulnerable, in case of BCCI boycott, for the period of 2015-2023

1. Broadcasting: 0%. Star Sports is legally bound to pay $60 for this period regardless of whoever qualifies or boycotts. However, as I said, if India's boycott is long-term, may be ICC won't get $60 from 2023-2031 periods, depending on the cricket economy of other markets that time.
2. Endorsements: Around 40% lower bid (My hunch is 25%, but I give 15% buffer). That's around $18 earning, instead of $30
3. Gate : Even considering 3rd generation Indian, who last time visited India with a British passport in last millennium won't turn out for any match in entire CT (not only matches that were involved IND), the price elasticity, I take 30% price drop to keep the ground at par in terms of attendance - that's $3 loss.

For a ball park figure, for 2015-23 period, without IND, ICC's possible revenue should stand around $60+$18+$7 = $85. This is subject to the mix of revenue source (60%, 30%, 10%) – for your comfort, I am making it 50%, 40% & 10% (giving more weight-age to 2nd one, which is most vulnerable), that earning stands at $40+$24+$7 = $71. Considering IND not participating, HENCE NOT GETTING ANY SHARE, that's straight $35 save (they are demanding 35%) - this gives me a buffer of around $20 ($6 in 2nd scenario), in net positive gain, in case of BCCI withdrawal. Therefore, as I said earlier that Manohar is actually offering BCCI an undue share. [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] telling every time regarding handouts, is quite right. Add to that the hosting right of 2023 WC - I am 100% sure that, even if the split is equal with ZIMBok board, BCCI won't withdraw participation.

The first part was direct financial impact. Let's think about hypothetical scenario of 8 months IPL & IND (BCCI) Spoiling world cricket by hiring top players from every country. I don't see that one feasible either, if all other boards remain strong. Let me explain this one with a null hypothesis of 1.3bn Indian singing Mera Bharat Mahan & enjoying IPL for 8 months. AND, this is considering that every bilateral series with IND is on & BCCI still can bully smaller boards with promise of short tours.

- Once, BCCI starts 8 months IPL with obnoxious amount, basically they are hiring players out of central contract. This means, non-Indian players are restricted only to IPL & no other franchise leagues (as long as other boards are strong), or at least not in leagues arranged by ECB, CA, CSAF & PCB. This time, it’s a trade-off between IPL vs, at least 3 other high earning Leagues combined + central contracts for respective boards. Hypothetically, let’s take that IPL is covering that financial loss for Jo Root or Steve Smith – now, we’ll have to calculate, what’ll be IPL out flow of cash expenses in that case & what should be their earning (inflow) to remain in business.

- BCCI doesn't allow it's players to other leagues & don't call PAK players, therefore, major 4 boards will block their central contracted players from IPL. In fact, regardless of BCCI withdrawal from ICC events or not, ECB won’t allow it’s central contracted players to participate in IPL, if Indian players are not allowed in their mega league – simple reason is, ECB (& their broadcaster) can’t milk Indian market, if there is no Indian players. Now, ECB is allowing Roots & Morgans & Stokes to play in IPL unconditionally, because they don’t have a bargain chip – add ECB T20 League in the mix, with central contract, it’s not one sided any more. Make it 8 months IPL, limited International cricket & no other major Franchise League – forget it, even PCB, CSAF & CA will have bargaining chips. Players playing for IPL window now, because their boards are allowing – if the stand point comes either IPL or every other contracts, I am sure players will do their maths to figure out what should be annual salary at IPL to cover the career.

- Even, if I consider a 20 team IPL, which in terms of cricket quality won't be far better than Faisal Bank T20, but I take that Indian's will watch that IPL as well with same passion for the gana-bazana & Mera Bharat Mahan feeling - it's not financially viable to ensure 100+ foreigners enough money to cover for a career for 2 decades without other leagues & central contracts. It'll work for some West Indians, Zimboks, Kiwis, Lankas, may be BD players - but won’t with top AUS, ENG, PAK & SAF players, for the reason I have mentioned above. However, I am not sure if every of 20 IPL teams plays 2/3 BD/ZIMBok players out of 4 foreigners & half the rest squad with Ranji stars, how much Gana-bazana would keep Indian passion high from that Mera Bharat Mahan feeling.

The bottom line is, BCCI can't run IPL successfully (financially) without at least support from 4 other boards with domestic cricket resources only - ECB, CA, PCB & USAF. Add BCB in that (Simple reason - 2/3 BD players playing in IPL now, it can go to 10/12, but these players are putting every egg in one basket of IPL, which is on annual contract) - 20 team IPL will be worthy watching for 9 months indeed.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION], [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION], [MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION]

Guys, I have deliberately avoided tagging any Indian, BD, PAK or Lankan posters here for obvious reasons (BUT, THEY ARE WELCOME TO PUT THEIR VIEWS on this) - I would appreciate, if you go through this & put your thoughts.

I might be wrong with the financials as well – BUT, my stand is, being Indian, Mr. Manohar had given a big corridor for BCCI to steal undue money (& 2023 WC hosting rights), they actually would have sent team for an equal share as well.

Superb post, I know I disagree with you time to time but what a monumental effort. I am educated on a few stuff that I did not even know, and you're 100% of broadcasting bids issue.

 

[Tusker]

Umm I've already shown you the evidence, however it proved your point of view to be rubbish so you didn't respond to it

Now the onus is on you to prove what you are saying is correct.

So far you have not provided any evidence to back up what you are saying. The only so called 'evidence' which you have provided is the secretary of the BCCI claiming that the ICC need the BCCI

The very fact that the ICC is looking to squeeze more $$ from the BCCI alone is evidence that it doesn't have the legs to stand on its own feet. It knows that all other members are pretty much ea beats so no use going after them. Yes the ICC survived without BCCI's help back in the day but try telling today's cricketers that they will have to take huge cuts and may also have to become semi-pro's if they want to play the game. See how far that will go ... Good luck

And yeah the link I quoted is credible ... you can pretend otherwise. Infact I will be surprise if you didn't ... aadat sey majboor an all that.

 

[TalhaSyed]

The very fact that the ICC is looking to squeeze more $$ from the BCCI alone is evidence that it doesn't have the legs to stand on its own feet. It knows that all other members are pretty much ea beats so no use going after them. Yes the ICC survived without BCCI's help back in the day but try telling today's cricketers that they will have to take huge cuts and may also have to become semi-pro's if they want to play the game. See how far that will go ... Good luck

And yeah the link I quoted is credible ... you can pretend otherwise. Infact I will be surprise if you didn't ... aadat sey majboor an all that.

The ICC is looking to take the money which the BCCI wants, and instead give it to the associate nations. The ICC is not looking to keep that money for their own expenditures, therefore, you argument falls flat on its face right there. The ICC does not need that money to continue running - however - sure the associates do need that money to expand. You know who does need that money to operate and is claiming that they cannot run without that money? The BCCI.

Also just to clarify again - the money which is being discussed here is the ICC's money - not the BCCI's money. Following your own logic, the fact that BCCI is so desperate to squeeze money out of the ICC proves that the BCCI cannot operate without getting huge sums of cash from the ICC. Cash which should be spent on helping the game grow and develop around the world - not just in India.

In fact I would go as far as saying that the ICC was doing a much better job promoting the sport around the world before BCCI become so rich and their dirty money came into the equation. The BCCI is doing nothing other than preventing the expansion and growth of the game for their own personal, selfish gains.

Now let me guess - the next thing you will say is "it's not the ICC's money, it is the BCCI's money!". Don't worry you're not the first to say that and you wont be the last. A lot of the BCCI fans here seem to think that it's the BCCI's money. However - please tell me this - what product does the BCCI sell to get that money?

Once you realise that, you will realise that the BCCI does have a huge market, however, without the ICC and the ICC members the BCCI does not have a product which they can sell.

However, since you fail to understand that an article in which a secretary of a company is barging about how important his company is, doesn't actually make that company important - I highly doubt you will be able wrap your head around this basic concept. Aadat sey majboor an all that.

 

[Tusker]

Your theory of 70% is not only delusional, it has become hilarious actually. CoA is run by businessman, so are ICC - that's why they are not such deluded. BCCI people as well - that's why they are sending team, would have done so even for lower amount.

I was a bit busy last week, therefore couldn't follow every thread & the drama around this issue, but I have done my ball-park calculations, which actually indicates that Mr. Manohar was trying a BIG favor for BCCI - he was trying to do even bigger ($400mn+) favor, but BCCI once declining that, couldn't accept it - it would have been shameless even for BCCI standard, who are trying to bully out to eat up those amount ICC allocated for associates. And, they are doing dirty politics with smaller boards – “not cutting your pie, but help me to rob that amount from Associates, I’ll make it sweeter for you later”.

Wrong. Vinod Rai the current BCCI head is an Economist by qualification and most of his career was in GoI as an auditor. Never ran a business. Ditto with the others ... Guha is a historian , Limaye is a banker and Diana is an ex-cricketer.

Secondly how does one go about doing favors to the entity from which they stole most of the monies ?

sorry but stopped reading the rest of your post right there.

 

[Junaids]

The very fact that the ICC is looking to squeeze more $$ from the BCCI alone is evidence that it doesn't have the legs to stand on its own feet. It knows that all other members are pretty much ea beats so no use going after them. Yes the ICC survived without BCCI's help back in the day but try telling today's cricketers that they will have to take huge cuts and may also have to become semi-pro's if they want to play the game. See how far that will go ... Good luck

And yeah the link I quoted is credible ... you can pretend otherwise. Infact I will be surprise if you didn't ... aadat sey majboor an all that.

The ICC is not "trying to squeeze" anything from the BCCI - its their money!

I thought that [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] produced a masterly post, and it really should be the next POTW. He sytematically dismantled the wall of spin and fake news that the Srinivasan lobby within the BCCI has produced to try to justify inflated ICC handouts to the BCCI.

It is a matter of convenience - and a stupid decision - that sees the ICC sell its global rights to Star India, after which Star India sells them on. FIFA learned that lesson a decade ago with Kirsch Media.

Every angle and every lesson in this sorry saga has already been played out in football and the Olympics - including the idea of one board/federation from a country whose broadcasters pay more getting a huge handout (which used to happen with the Americans because NBC pays so much for Olympic broadcast rights.)

It has been funny watching BCCI apologists trot out the same lines used by other profligate overspending boards in other sports.

The problem for the BCCI is that Manohar let the genie out of the bottle, and they can't put it back in, not now that the ECB and Cricket Australia understand that

1) The 500% increase in Indian handouts was to pay for local votes, and
2) The BCCI can't afford its spending on the basis of its revenue, and
3) A 9 month IPL is a bluff, because the way that the BCCI killed the ICL showed that No Objection Certificates can stop current internationals from following the money.

So quite sensibly the BCCI will accept a settlement. My hope is that they focus on the money and not the committee structure, because that is where the Big Three changes have done the most damage.

 

[Tusker]

The ICC is not "trying to squeeze" anything from the BCCI - its their money!

You need to start accepting some hard facts ... the BCCI Controls the tap from where the money flows. They quite literally own the sport. The ICC does not have a copy right on Cricket. As soon as you realize and accept this the rest of the bickering will eventually take care of itself.

I thought that [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] produced a masterly post, and it really should be the next POTW. He sytematically dismantled the wall of spin and fake news that the Srinivasan lobby within the BCCI has produced to try to justify inflated ICC handouts to the BCCI.

See my response to that post above.

It is a matter of convenience - and a stupid decision - that sees the ICC sell its global rights to Star India, after which Star India sells them on. FIFA learned that lesson a decade ago with Kirsch Media.



Every angle and every lesson in this sorry saga has already been played out in football and the Olympics - including the idea of one board/federation from a country whose broadcasters pay more getting a huge handout (which used to happen with the Americans because NBC pays so much for Olympic broadcast rights.)

It has been funny watching BCCI apologists trot out the same lines used by other profligate overspending boards in other sports.

The problem for the BCCI is that Manohar let the genie out of the bottle, and they can't put it back in, not now that the ECB and Cricket Australia understand that

1) The 500% increase in Indian handouts was to pay for local votes, and
2) The BCCI can't afford its spending on the basis of its revenue, and
3) A 9 month IPL is a bluff, because the way that the BCCI killed the ICL showed that No Objection Certificates can stop current internationals from following the money.

So quite sensibly the BCCI will accept a settlement. My hope is that they focus on the money and not the committee structure, because that is where the Big Three changes have done the most damage.

Again ... the monies come predominantly from Indian sponsors through BCCI therefore that makes BCCI the rightful owner of those funds. You can try to dance around it as much as you want but that is the harsh fact.

 

[Tusker]

The ICC is looking to take the money which the BCCI wants, and instead give it to the associate nations. The ICC is not looking to keep that money for their own expenditures, therefore, you argument falls flat on its face right there. The ICC does not need that money to continue running - however - sure the associates do need that money to expand. You know who does need that money to operate and is claiming that they cannot run without that money? The BCCI.

First of all see if you can try to find one credible link where it proves that the BCCI cannot operate without the extra $$ . BTW [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] or any other posts by posters here on PP do not count as evidence. Once you do that we can go into the rest of the issue ... fair ?

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
The BCCI controls nothing apart from its own direct revenue from its own media sales.

It should be the richest board in the world, but spends so incontinently that it is on its knees begging for handouts so that it can pay its bills as they fall due.

We just don't need them. They have some control over the Indian team, but frankly no non-Indians would even notice - let alone care - from a cricketing point of view if they gave up international cricket.

So the only way in which India is of use to the rest of the world is in terms of the TV rights for bilateral series which belong to home boards and the rights for global tournaments which belong to the ICC.

But one consequence of having bothered to read the BCCI's financial statements is that I now understand that while Indian TV generates a lot of revenue, all that and more is outnumbered by the amounts of ICC money which is given to the BCCI and then squandered on buying local state association votes.

In short, the BCCI takes and wastes more wealth than the Indian TV market creates.

Sad, but true.

The incompetent administration of the BCCI means that in reality, India is a burden on world cricket.

 

[90MPH]

Indian fans still coming out with same ridiculous line that the BCCI owns cricket.

If that was the case they wouldn't have bowed down and instead stuck to the guns.

Get this into your heads, cricket is not business but a sport that's needs new members to flourish to make it better.
Try to understand this simple concept. More TV money because of a massive population doesn't mean your country has to be the big bully and get it what it seems fit.

 

[Tusker]

Indian fans still coming out with same ridiculous line that the BCCI owns cricket.

If that was the case they wouldn't have bowed down and instead stuck to the guns.

Get this into your heads, cricket is not business but a sport that's needs new members to flourish to make it better.
Try to understand this simple concept. More TV money because of a massive population doesn't mean your country has to be the big bully and get it what it seems fit.

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/icc...lds-will-lead-to-crickets-brexit-3427402.html

 

[TalhaSyed]

First of all see if you can try to find one credible link where it proves that the BCCI cannot operate without the extra $$ . BTW [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] and [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] or any other posts by posters here on PP do not count as evidence. Once you do that we can go into the rest of the issue ... fair ?

It's simple - if BCCI didn't need it - they would not be begging ICC for it.

I've had enough of your BS. Stop dodging and diving questions. Im not wasting anymore time going through news articles or financial reports for you when you obviously aren't even smart enough to read them - never mind understand them. Specially when posters like Junaid and myself have already presented you with the numbers.

You have not responded to a single question I have asked so far because the answer will expose your argument to be complete garbage. You have not yet provided a single piece of statistical or factual evidence to prove that the ICC needs the BCCI, yet you continue to run your mouth and talking trash, asking for evidence, even though you are not competent enough to even read the evidence, never mind understand it.

You're proving to be nothing but a waste of time. You have not made a single sensible point and have added absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

Answer the question in this post:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...e-to-ICC-Update-Post-86&p=9230370#post9230370

and in this post:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...e-to-ICC-Update-Post-86&p=9230779#post9230779

and the posts made by [MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] & [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION], otherwise do what Napa did and run away with your tail tucked in between your legs.

The BCCI have learned their worth and have been put in their place. It would be good if their fans now realised this and stopped running their mouth.

Until you start answering question, you will just receive this message as a response to all of your posts directed towards me. I'm not gonna waste any more time typing responses to posts which clearly show that your absolutely clueless about what is being discussed, can't read/type more than a couple of lines and are too stubborn to accept you are wrong.

 

[Tusker]

It's simple - if BCCI didn't need it - they would not be begging ICC for it.

What kind of lahori logic is this ... Does anybody beg for their own money ? Unless ofcourse its stolen ? And if I have surplus I need to handover that to ICC )

Good luck answering that with proper facts.

 

[TalhaSyed]

What kind of lahori logic is this ... Does anybody beg for their own money ? Unless ofcourse its stolen ? And if I have surplus I need to handover that to ICC )

Good luck answering that with proper facts.

It's simple - if BCCI didn't need it - they would not be begging ICC for it.

I've had enough of your BS. Stop dodging and diving questions. Im not wasting anymore time going through news articles or financial reports for you when you obviously aren't even smart enough to read them - never mind understand them. Specially when posters like Junaid and myself have already presented you with the numbers.

You have not responded to a single question I have asked so far because the answer will expose your argument to be complete garbage. You have not yet provided a single piece of statistical or factual evidence to prove that the ICC needs the BCCI, yet you continue to run your mouth and talking trash, asking for evidence, even though you are not competent enough to even read the evidence, never mind understand it.

You're proving to be nothing but a waste of time. You have not made a single sensible point and have added absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.

Answer the question in this post:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...e-to-ICC-Update-Post-86&p=9230370#post9230370

and in this post:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...e-to-ICC-Update-Post-86&p=9230779#post9230779

and the posts made by [MENTION=291]junaid[/MENTION] & [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION], otherwise do what Napa did and run away with your tail tucked in between your legs.

The BCCI have learned their worth and have been put in their place. It would be good if their fans now realised this and stopped running their mouth.

Until you start answering question, you will just receive this message as a response to all of your posts directed towards me. I'm not gonna waste any more time typing responses to posts which clearly show that your absolutely clueless about what is being discussed, can't read/type more than a couple of lines and are too stubborn to accept you are wrong.

 

[Junaids]

What kind of lahori logic is this ... Does anybody beg for their own money ? Unless ofcourse its stolen ? And if I have surplus I need to handover that to ICC )

Good luck answering that with proper facts.

Nice try, but it's no more the BCCI's money than Afghanistan's.

It is money paid to the ICC for the global rights to cover global events.

Srinivasan cottoned on to it as a convenient way to source money to pay for state association votes, and created the laughable premise that the money comes from an Indian TV channel and must therefore somehow be the property of the BCCI.

It's arrant nonsense. It's such a stupid argument really that it's amazing that anybody ever bought it.

But having created this colossal structure of unaccountable payoffs, the BCCI is now desperate to hold on to its ill-gotten gains.

 

[MMHS]

Wrong. Vinod Rai the current BCCI head is an Economist by qualification and most of his career was in GoI as an auditor. Never ran a business. Ditto with the others ... Guha is a historian , Limaye is a banker and Diana is an ex-cricketer.

Secondly how does one go about doing favors to the entity from which they stole most of the monies ?

sorry but stopped reading the rest of your post right there.

Thanks god that you stopped reading rest of my post - I also don't want someone to read my post with the maturity of questioning Auditor General of India's business acumen. Also, came to know that bankers count money by hand, they don't know much about business. You have given me a great relief - otherwise I had to spend whole day to explain you, if you had the interest to read the whole post.

Who is stealing whose money, to understand that, first you have to grow up to the level to know the difference between "an auditor" & "Auditor general of GoI" - this is not your usual trolling, therefore it's good for you that you lost interest.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Thanks god that you stopped reading rest of my post - I also don't want someone to read my post with the maturity of questioning Auditor General of India's business acumen. Also, came to know that bankers count money by hand, they don't know much about business. You have given me a great relief - otherwise I had to spend whole day to explain you, if you had the interest to read the whole post.

Who is stealing whose money, to understand that, first you have to grow up to the level to know the difference between "an auditor" & "Auditor general of GoI" - this is not your usual trolling, therefore it's good for you that you lost interest.

Auditor General of India is not a businessman.Also its a nominated post.He is mainly the auditor of Indian govt. Its laughable that a bangladeshi is trying to tell Indians what a Auditor General is.LOL.

Try these tactics elsewhere.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Well most of the revenue from ICC tourneys come in from broadcasting rights and that’s sold by ICC as a package to the highest bidder. This cycle of ICC events from 2015-2023 for instance was sold to Star India and Star Middle East back in 2014. Obviously India’s participation would contribute most to that packaged amount but exactly what percentage I have no idea. I do not really buy this 70% talk tho haven’t seen any actual numbers to back that up. And even if it is 70% that’s around 20 times more than anyone else on average not 60 actually.

Anyways putting all that aside and looking at the bigger picture, the real issue here is that if you are going to divide the pie according to who brings what to the table then cricket would struggle in most places around the world. Eventually there will only be 4/5 decent teams left. So in that case there won’t even be any point in having ICC tourneys. Which is why everyone needs to get together and work out an equitable solution.

As for BCCI getting over six times that of everyone else that is certainly not an equitable solution. In fact before the Big 3 changes in 2014 BCCI actually used to receive the same share (ie 7.5%). And the offer currently on the table for BCCI is over 3.5 times that of everyone else. So BCCI certainly isn't getting the rough end of the stick as it’s propaganda machine would have you believe.

What is the size of Sri Lankan economy?That will tell us how much revenue can be generated in SL. COnsidering Lanka gets 132mn and India 293 mn, Lankan economy must be around 1tn?

 

[MMHS]

Auditor General of India is not a businessman.Also its a nominated post.He is mainly the auditor of Indian govt. Its laughable that a bangladeshi is trying to tell Indians what a Auditor General is.LOL.

Try these tactics elsewhere.

Laugh all that you can - that's what others are doing at you.

By the way, why you are bringing Bangladeshi & Indian here? If you have the knowledge, try to explain what's the role of an auditor general or do you think that GoI puts anyone as AG from their wish list? If you are to argue, you have to come out of your superiority complex - I didn't post anything on this topic for few posters like you.

Instead of your usual tactic, try to answer my post with proper logic, otherwise don't bother to troll around. You should have got enough by now for your cheerleading.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Thanks god that you stopped reading rest of my post - I also don't want someone to read my post with the maturity of questioning Auditor General of India's business acumen. Also, came to know that bankers count money by hand, they don't know much about business. You have given me a great relief - otherwise I had to spend whole day to explain you, if you had the interest to read the whole post.

Who is stealing whose money, to understand that, first you have to grow up to the level to know the difference between "an auditor" & "Auditor general of GoI" - this is not your usual trolling, therefore it's good for you that you lost interest.

Nice try.Trying to put up a IAS officer,who is a bureaucrat as a businessman.DOnt you get tired with these lies/half truths of yours?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Laugh all that you can - that's what others are doing at you��.

By the way, why you are bringing Bangladeshi & Indian here? If you have the knowledge, try to explain what's the role of an auditor general or do you think that GoI puts anyone as AG from their wish list? If you are to argue, you have to come out of your superiority complex - I didn't post anything on this topic for few posters like you.

Instead of your usual tactic, try to answer my post with proper logic, otherwise don't bother to troll around. You should have got enough by now for your cheerleading.

Any IAS officer of seniority can be appointed as Auditor General of India. I am bringin Bangladesh and Indian because you very often on this forum try to portray how you know everything about India etc etc.How many times have your posts have been demolished as Half truths?Just writing huge eloquent posts dont make them the truth.

A AG is just a IAS officer, a bureaucrat, just like the other secretaries heading other govt depts, in this case heading the Audit Dept of the GOI.

The function of the CAG is

he is primarily entrusted with the responsibility to audit the accounts of the Union Government and of the State Governments of India. His reports are laid before the Parliament and Legislatures of the States.

Those who laugh last,laugh the loudest.Mark these words.

 

[MMHS]

Nice try.Trying to put up a IAS officer,who is a bureaucrat as a businessman.DOnt you get tired with these lies/half truths of yours?

You won't get away with this one dear - Vinod Rai could be anyone, so is S Manohar. It doesn't matter they understand business like you or not - what matters is the bluff of BCCI, which was busted.


I am really surprised to see how shameless people can be - you are still trying to spin around after being pawned by everyone on this topic. Keep posting, it's fun.

 

[MMHS]

Any IAS officer of seniority can be appointed as Auditor General of India. I am bringin Bangladesh and Indian because you very often on this forum try to portray how you know everything about India etc etc.How many times have your posts have been demolished as Half truths?Just writing huge eloquent posts dont make them the truth.

A AG is just a IAS officer, a bureaucrat, just like the other secretaries heading other govt depts, in this case heading the Audit Dept of the GOI.

The function of the CAG is

Those who laugh last,laugh the loudest.Mark these words.

So, you think someone working in Govt. Service must not possess any business acumen - he is a calculator, puts number & report comes out.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You won't get away with this one dear - Vinod Rai could be anyone, so is S Manohar. It doesn't matter they understand business like you or not - what matters is the bluff of BCCI, which was busted.


I am really surprised to see how shameless people can be - you are still trying to spin around after being pawned by everyone on this topic. Keep posting, it's fun.

Lies caught.Now try bringing in others.

Vinod Rai is a 1972 batch IAS officer not a businessman.

Who is pawned and who is not will be known to everyone in a few months.

Let BCCI deal with CoA, they will deal with ICC after that.The tap of ICC money is in India and can be turned off anytime.The MPA runs till 2023.

 

[MMHS]

What is the size of Sri Lankan economy?That will tell us how much revenue can be generated in SL. COnsidering Lanka gets 132mn and India 293 mn, Lankan economy must be around 1tn?

Can you do your same "intellectual" analysis with the GDP with AUS/UK & their payment size in this regard? BCCI is asking 4 times than CA, so Australia's economy must be......

 

[princeuk]

What kind of lahori logic is this ... Does anybody beg for their own money ? Unless ofcourse its stolen ? And if I have surplus I need to handover that to ICC )

Good luck answering that with proper facts.

The same way that when PCB demands India to play them, it's their right and part of the MOU not pakistan begging them, it's Pakistans right to ask for it but of course the BCCI bullies can pick and choose as they please,

 

[cricketjoshila]

So, you think someone working in Govt. Service must not possess any business acumen - he is a calculator, puts number & report comes out.

��

Stick to what you claimed. IAS officer is a bureaucrat and not a businessman.There is no proof he ever had any kind of credible business.

The Defence Secretary,another Bureaucrat who leads another Department,Do you think he has any experience in Military?He goes to fight on the borders?

Your lies are caught,as usual.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The same way that when PCB demands India to play them, it's their right and part of the MOU not pakistan begging them, it's Pakistans right to ask for it but of course the BCCI bullies can pick and choose as they please,

Whether its PCB's right to play India under the MoU will be decided by the court.Its PCB's claim,isnt it?

Have BCCI even asked once PCB to play?PCB wants to play because they need the money from the Indian market.

 

[MMHS]

Lies caught.Now try bringing in others.

Vinod Rai is a 1972 batch IAS officer not a businessman.

Who is pawned and who is not will be known to everyone in a few months.

Let BCCI deal with CoA, they will deal with ICC after that.The tap of ICC money is in India and can be turned off anytime.The MPA runs till 2023.

This one is fine, I won't argue, because I don't know what will happen in future. For that, I do know what happens when loud mouths talk too much, too early & then ....... you know, it's a bad taste. There are enough evidence even in some of the threads in PP itself.

In few months time, we'll definitely see what happens. As of now, what I see is India playing in CT at ICC's condition - you should be happy for that, like most other Indians.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This one is fine, I won't argue, because I don't know what will happen in future. For that, I do know what happens when loud mouths talk too much, too early & then ....... you know, it's a bad taste. There are enough evidence even in some of the threads in PP itself.

In few months time, we'll definitely see what happens. As of now, what I see is India playing in CT at ICC's condition - you should be happy for that, like most other Indians.

The ICC conditions only pass in June end AGM.Before that they are proposals.

 

[princeuk]

Whether its PCB's right to play India under the MoU will be decided by the court.Its PCB's claim,isnt it?

Have BCCI even asked once PCB to play?PCB wants to play because they need the money from the Indian market.

The PCB needs money full stop just like any other cricket board, and it's within their rights to do so since there are supposed to be scheduling test series with each other.

 

[MMHS]

Stick to what you claimed. IAS officer is a bureaucrat and not a businessman.There is no proof he ever had any kind of credible business.

The Defence Secretary,another Bureaucrat who leads another Department,Do you think he has any experience in Military?He goes to fight on the borders?

Your lies are caught,as usual.

Now, you are going too far. It's not ralivent though, but since you are trying to prove me a liar - Vinod Rai has a fantastic business mind, though he is an IAS officer - prove than wrong, otherwise don't troll around.

Otherwise - you are a liar, caught here & trying to defame someone.

The day Defense Secretary's job descriptions will require experience of fighting on border, we'll judge if he is wiialified or not - for the time being, leave him in peace & try to save yourself from further laughter : prove, Vinod Rai being IAS officer doesn't have any business acumen.

 

[90MPH]

Its totally pointless debating with nationalistic Indian fans on this issue.

They don't see cricket as a sport for all but as a national business interest where their board needs to make as much money as they can and sod everyone else especially those nations that need to develop.

I knew the BCCI were far too cowardly to pull out because they knew the TV money they would lose. They are a money Mafia organisation and only die hard nationalistic Indian fans would defend it.

In fact the lengths Indian fans go to defend a sports board is very bizarre and something you don't see with any other sports fan around the world. Very bizarre indeed !

 

[MMHS]

The ICC conditions only pass in June end AGM.Before that they are proposals.

That's fine - if BCCI can prove their point, can buy enough vote, things will change & I don't have any issue. I even didn't post on this topic, because that's not my interest either.

My post was against the thought of 70%, which went up to 85% level - I tried to bust that myth; it stands now & it'll stand after whatever is passed at AGM.

 

[MMHS]

Its totally pointless debating with nationalistic Indian fans on this issue.

They don't see cricket as a sport for all but as a national business interest where their board needs to make as much money as they can and sod everyone else especially those nations that need to develop.

I knew the BCCI were far too cowardly to pull out because they knew the TV money they would lose. They are a money Mafia organisation and only die hard nationalistic Indian fans would defend it.

In fact the lengths Indian fans go to defend a sports board is very bizarre and something you don't see with any other sports fan around the world. Very bizarre indeed !

You are insulting vast majority of Indians here. Do you think, those who doesn't support on Bcci's stand here are not nationalistic?

 

[Junaids]

I actually don't think that business acumen is a millionth of as important as a love of cricket and good ethics.

It's a mistake of the type made by Americans for Indians (or others) to think that cricket should be purely run as a business and that the market makes everything okay.

It's just not true for medium sized sports like rugby and cricket which only really have around 10-12 coutries playing the game at a serious level.

The absolute worst thing we can do is run it purely as a business. That's a quick way to kill off the game in South Africa and England and Zimbabwe and the West Indies, where cricket is a minority sport.

And the BCCI is not the worst offender in this regard. My own board, the ECB is: by selling TV rights to the highest bidder they have now gone 11 years with no cricket on free-to-air TV (except the IPL briefly) with the result that a generation of boys has no place in its life for cricket. They have killed the game.

Cricket needs to be run globally by independent and accountable executives who try to help the game to flourish in the 12 countries which are its base - I'm including Afghanistan and Ireland. That's why I advocate for the ICC to use its huge surplus to

1. pay for central contracts for all cricketers from outside the Big Three,
2. sell all global bilateral series TV rights (and to make some free-to-air broadcast mandatory)
3. pay for global full DRS to make the TV product more high quality.

Then, and only then, consider spending some ICC money at national level.

But don't just give it to the boards to squander - and I'm looking at Sri Lanka and West Indies just as much as the BCCI. Award ICC grants for genuine and accountable grassroots and infrastructure investment, and audit it.

Cricket is a bit like the healthcare market. It needs to be kept as far away from the open market as possible, because otherwise you end up with the American healthcare system instead of the NHS or Australian system. Which is a catastrophe.

Allow some market principles. But not too many.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The PCB needs money full stop just like any other cricket board, and it's within their rights to do so since there are supposed to be scheduling test series with each other.

PCB has no right to demand any series with India, unless the MoU specifically states that. Just because India plays with everyone else, doesnt mean it has to play Pakistan.

 

[Junaids]

The ICC conditions only pass in June end AGM.Before that they are proposals.

As is the 2014 Big Three budget allocation. As it has been voted out into the dustbin.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Now, you are going too far. It's not ralivent though, but since you are trying to prove me a liar - Vinod Rai has a fantastic business mind, though he is an IAS officer - prove than wrong, otherwise don't troll around.

Otherwise - you are a liar, caught here & trying to defame someone.

The day Defense Secretary's job descriptions will require experience of fighting on border, we'll judge if he is wiialified or not - for the time being, leave him in peace & try to save yourself from further laughter : prove, Vinod Rai being IAS officer doesn't have any business acumen.

You claimed first that he is a businessman so the onus is on you to prove it.I just proved you are a liar for telling a IAS officer is some kind of a super business head honcho.

 

[cricketjoshila]

As is the 2014 Big Three budget allocation. As it has been voted out into the dustbin.

All votes are in AGM.Till then nothing is final.

 

[90MPH]

You are insulting vast majority of Indians here. Do you think, those who doesn't support on Bcci's stand here are not nationalistic?

I'm talking about those on this thread defending the BCCI and not questioning their nationality on other issues.

And while I don't want to go off track there is blind nationalism as well where everything has to be defended.

Do you remember the ludicrous 2014 deal ?? How many Indian fans were against it ?? Very very few spoke against it and Infact many were defending it. It's same situation now - except it's victim mentality complex being played.

Only a few exceptions like Bhaag but reality is vast majority support their board, and their stance.

 

[cricketjoshila]

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] @R0hit [MENTION=139678]Zak_Fan[/MENTION] [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION]

The much maligned CoA may have just given BCCI a totally different strategy to fight the ICC.A totally dfferent way of tackling the issue.They have written a 11 page letter to state associations on the points to focus on in ICC.It covers both revenue and governance issues thus widening the scope of this battle.

 

[MMHS]

I'm talking about those on this thread defending the BCCI and not questioning their nationality on other issues.

And while I don't want to go off track there is blind nationalism as well where everything has to be defended.

Do you remember the ludicrous 2014 deal ?? How many Indian fans were against it ?? Very very few spoke against it and Infact many were defending it. It's same situation now - except it's victim mentality complex being played.

Only a few exceptions like Bhaag but reality is vast majority support their board, and their stance.

I think, it's a bit different issue. Most Indian posters supported BCCI's stand on revenue sharing, because that's human nature - same reason most non Indian went against it. Interesting part is - I doubt anyone had noticed that in this revenue sharing in revised model (both offers) it's between Associates & BCCI; only ECB is losing significantly in that change, but they are supporting the wrong side in that regard. But, hardly any Indian posters, apart from few, would never accept IND pulling out of an ICC event.

Those few are also not doing this from their sense. They have made the fundamental mistake of basting too early - even with bullies like in cricket, India is USA, 9 months IPL & kill cricket elsewhere, feed to smaller boards, without IND, cricket loses 70% riches.......... they have build on those funda so much & have bullied posters around, whoever questioned their wisdom, regardless of nationality. Now, it's biting back.

It has nothing to do with Nationalism, rather vaunted personal ego - these "Nationalist" people want IND to pull out & not to defend their title, for the sake of few days verbal "victory" for them in a cricket blog You want to put that as Nationalism?

 

[MMHS]

You claimed first that he is a businessman so the onus is on you to prove it.I just proved you are a liar for telling a IAS officer is some kind of a super business head honcho.

You didn't prove anything - just trying to divert the discussion for the topic of that post. To understand business, one doesn't need to own or run business - your stand point is, since Vinod Rai isn't a businessman, rather an IAS officer, it makes the content of the post irrelevant or void.

An auditor general has enough qualification to understand the technical & logical terms of a financial deals, terms, condition. In fact, you don't need to have professional degree to learn a business model or any logic. Besides, any educated person, giving time & effort can understand a business situation & give decisions. It's not that only 4 people took this decision from their own, without consulting subject matter experts.

As an example - you write lot on BCCI Governance & Cricket, after claiming to be a doctor (I am not questioning that) - how does that back your posts on BCCI Governance or Cricket? How many years you had been in Civil Service or how many Tests have you played in your career to write? That's applicable in every aspect of life.

As I said, in last 3/4 months, this is probably my 2nd thread on this topic, that I have written something, simply because I don't have the taste of arguing for the sake of it & I don't have any interest here in PP outside cricket - in 6 years, I probably have never posted outside Cricket & Sports section. I am happy as long as the game is going strong. My post was to demystify the myth of ICC's revenue source (that 70% story) & as I said, I might be wrong in my calculations - it's an open forum to discuss/debate on that. I don't care much if it's 35% or 3.5% to BCCI, as long as the game is on & so move on - no one is winning or losing here. Vinod Rai was intelligent enough to ensure CT2017 goes smoothly & it doesn't set a bad precedence, enough smartness for me.

 

[MMHS]

Superb post, I know I disagree with you time to time but what a monumental effort. I am educated on a few stuff that I did not even know, and you're 100% of broadcasting bids issue.

Please keep doing that, as long it goes to personal - confrontation & conflict is better than compromise & conformity, as long as it's done in proper spirit. I appreciate posters questioning me, because that keeps me honest & aware.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] @R0hit [MENTION=139678]Zak_Fan[/MENTION] [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION]

The much maligned CoA may have just given BCCI a totally different strategy to fight the ICC.A totally dfferent way of tackling the issue.They have written a 11 page letter to state associations on the points to focus on in ICC.It covers both revenue and governance issues thus widening the scope of this battle.

Interestng . When will be the next round of activity / announcement on this matter ?

 

[Tusker]

Thanks god that you stopped reading rest of my post - I also don't want someone to read my post with the maturity of questioning Auditor General of India's business acumen. Also, came to know that bankers count money by hand, they don't know much about business. You have given me a great relief - otherwise I had to spend whole day to explain you, if you had the interest to read the whole post.

Who is stealing whose money, to understand that, first you have to grow up to the level to know the difference between "an auditor" & "Auditor general of GoI" - this is not your usual trolling, therefore it's good for you that you lost interest.

your original Claim was (to use your exact words ) :

CoA is run by businessman, so are ICC -

No matter how you twist and turn it is very clear that those who now run BCCI are *NOT* businessmen. You claiming a CAG will obviously have Business acumen is like an employee of Amazon or Berkshire claiming to have business acumen because they are associated with very successful business entities.

Not surprised at you getting bent out of shape and hurling petty insults like a child. Totally expected and tells who needs to grow up . Good luck.

 

[SL_Fan]

What is the size of Sri Lankan economy?That will tell us how much revenue can be generated in SL. COnsidering Lanka gets 132mn and India 293 mn, Lankan economy must be around 1tn?

What exactly has any of that got to do with ICC’s revenue sharing model. Fyi the current offer on the table for BCCI this cycle (excluding the 2016 World T20 which India has already hosted) is around $400 mil + over 100 mil in hosting fees for upcoming 2021 CT and 2023 WC. So all in all BCCI is actually set to receive at least $400 mil more than SL this cycle.


Btw whatever happened to that show cause notice that you were blabbering on about. Got lost in the mail or something?

I am not you who dishes out BS. Your hatred for India is well known. The BCCI wil serve a showcause on ICC for breaking the MPA.

 

[Tusker]

I actually don't think that business acumen is a millionth of as important as a love of cricket and good ethics.

This is right up there along the lines of Amateurs > Professionals.

The BCCI used to be run by such people in the old days. The less said the better about the plight of players back then. Dalmiya changed all of that single handedly.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

The ICC conditions only pass in June end AGM.Before that they are proposals.

2 questions:

1) Then why has the ICC been rushing to vote against the BCCI delay tactics?

2) With what will the BCCI bribe BCB and ZC in order to reverse the 9-1 vote on revenue and 8-2 on governance issues? How many series will BCCI have to promise in order to make up the revenue loss for those 2 boards + the wrath of "backstabbing" the CA and ECB? How many months are in each year after you take out a 2 month window for the IPL?

3) How can you be so sure the ECB and CA won't come up with a bigger counter bribe?

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Its totally pointless debating with nationalistic Indian fans on this issue.

They don't see cricket as a sport for all but as a national business interest where their board needs to make as much money as they can and sod everyone else especially those nations that need to develop.

I knew the BCCI were far too cowardly to pull out because they knew the TV money they would lose. They are a money Mafia organisation and only die hard nationalistic Indian fans would defend it.

In fact the lengths Indian fans go to defend a sports board is very bizarre and something you don't see with any other sports fan around the world. Very bizarre indeed !

Have been saying this for days these BCCI spokesperson only care about business side of cricket. They have nothing to do with cricket which we all love and are quick to call real cricket fans as alleged indians.

There is no point explaining it to them. Even after BCCI deciding to send indian team they are not giving up. Hopefully they will avoid watching CT now because they are waiting for BCCI to get strong again and show who is the real boss.

 

[IAJ]

Have been saying this for days these BCCI spokesperson only care about business side of cricket. They have nothing to do with cricket which we all love and are quick to call real cricket fans as alleged indians.

There is no point explaining it to them. Even after BCCI deciding to send indian team they are not giving up. Hopefully they will avoid watching CT now because they are waiting for BCCI to get strong again and show who is the real boss.

Honestly, it's so pleasing to read posts like this where people can stay objective and give a verdict instead of blindly defending everything what has to do with the country.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Toeing the line.... that's a good boy. Why the hoo haa?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

What exactly has any of that got to do with ICC’s revenue sharing model. Fyi the current offer on the table for BCCI this cycle (excluding the 2016 World T20 which India has already hosted) is around $400 mil + over 100 mil in hosting fees for upcoming 2021 CT and 2023 WC. So all in all BCCI is actually set to receive at least $400 mil more than SL this cycle.


Btw whatever happened to that show cause notice that you were blabbering on about. Got lost in the mail or something?

Even Srinivasan bowed his head, kept quite in a corner and decided to toe the line...

Their con has been outed!!

 

[GrandMaster]

Its not that simple to say other boards don't contribute as much as BCCI. It takes two teams to play a cricket match, 10 to play a World Cup.

India hosts Australia for 4 Tests and then hosts Zimbabwe for 4 Tests...do both tours make the exact same amount of money? No, the Australia tour makes a ton more. But the Indian team is constant. Therefore the Australian team must be the 100% determining factor in whatever the difference in revenue is.

Same happens when Australia hosts India vs Zimbabwe. In this case India generates 100% of the revenue difference.

Is the revenue difference 5x more when India tours Australia?

If that's the case then why not have a flat rate of 7% each for all top 10 test playing nation and rest 3% for associates?

 

[Junaids]

This is right up there along the lines of Amateurs > Professionals.

The BCCI used to be run by such people in the old days. The less said the better about the plight of players back then. Dalmiya changed all of that single handedly.

Have you read the syllabus for any sports management B.Sc or MBA?

There are over 200 places at Australian universities and over 10,000 jobs in sports administration in Australia - every surf club, every rugby league club, etc.

And a huge part of the syllabus relates to conflicts of interest, governance structures, funding and expenditure.

All of which Srinivasan got the ICC to ignore.

The "amateurs" as you put it, are the unqualified Indians who administer the sport at state and BCCI level.

 

[Hawkeye]

Have you read the syllabus for any sports management B.Sc or MBA?

There are over 200 places at Australian universities and over 10,000 jobs in sports administration in Australia - every surf club, every rugby league club, etc.

And a huge part of the syllabus relates to conflicts of interest, governance structures, funding and expenditure.

All of which Srinivasan got the ICC to ignore.

The "amateurs" as you put it, are the unqualified Indians who administer the sport at state and BCCI level.

Like I usually say, it's similar to when an ignorant uneducated person becomes rich overnight. Either wins a lotto or robs a bank, whatever be the source -- the sudden wealth and power can make some go insane, in the hunger for more power.

Totally shambolic, and it's even more shameful for educated Indians to be supporting this BCCI stance. Guess it's the jignoism.

 

[Junaids]

This is right up there along the lines of Amateurs > Professionals.

The BCCI used to be run by such people in the old days. The less said the better about the plight of players back then. Dalmiya changed all of that single handedly.

Like I usually say, it's similar to when an ignorant uneducated person becomes rich overnight. Either wins a lotto or robs a bank, whatever be the source -- the sudden wealth and power can make some go insane, in the hunger for more power.

Totally shambolic, and it's even more shameful for educated Indians to be supporting this BCCI stance. Guess it's the jignoism.

Consider Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland.

He has a Bachelor of Commerce degree but also an MBA in Sports Management from Stanford University in California, where he learned about the NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball, National Hockey League and other Class-leading sports administration models.

Sutherland knows all about sports ethics as an academic subject and should not have acquiesced in the Big Three.

But in India, you don't need any understanding of or adherence to modern sports governance theory. You just need to deliver lots of rupees to your power base.

 

[Hawkeye]

Consider Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland.

He has a Bachelor of Commerce degree but also an MBA in Sports Management from Stanford University in California, where he learned about the NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball, National Hockey League and other Class-leading sports administration models.

Sutherland knows all about sports ethics as an academic subject and should not have acquiesced in the Big Three.

But in India, you don't need any understanding of or adherence to modern sports governance theory. You just need to deliver lots of rupees to your power base.

You're absolutely right. Tbh, it would apply to all the subcontinent sides, barring maybe Sri Lanka who are somewhat civilized.

Any SC board becoming rich overnight would've most probably behaved the same way.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Like I usually say, it's similar to when an ignorant uneducated person becomes rich overnight. Either wins a lotto or robs a bank, whatever be the source -- the sudden wealth and power can make some go insane, in the hunger for more power.

Totally shambolic, and it's even more shameful for educated Indians to be supporting this BCCI stance. Guess it's the jignoism.

The educated ones remind me of a line from Seinfeld.... "it's not a lie, if you believe it".

They should be really holding bcci to account and asking why is it insolvent without ICC money and where is the audit trail on how money is spent! ....

You have two major teams currently banned from ipl, one of which was part owned by ex chairman, Supreme Court dismissing the bcci office holders and appointing administrators .... is this a sign of a well run transparent organisation?

I didn't even mention the ipl team ownership structure and use of front men and women.

 

[Tusker]

Have you read the syllabus for any sports management B.Sc or MBA?

There are over 200 places at Australian universities and over 10,000 jobs in sports administration in Australia - every surf club, every rugby league club, etc.

And a huge part of the syllabus relates to conflicts of interest, governance structures, funding and expenditure.

All of which Srinivasan got the ICC to ignore.

The "amateurs" as you put it, are the unqualified Indians who administer the sport at state and BCCI level.

Which is why shrewd business acumen comes with real experience and it trumps any of the fat degrees you quote.Simple Life lessons 101.

 

[SL_Fan]

Even Srinivasan bowed his head, kept quite in a corner and decided to toe the line...

Their con has been outed!!

All empty threats. It appears that BCCI didn't have a legal leg to stand on either despite all the hoo-ha.

BCCI on weak legal ground

Documents HT have accessed suggest BCCI is on weak legal ground. Late in April, the advice of Herbert Smith Freehills, a law firm headquartered in London, was sought about BCCI’s rights under Members Participation Agreement (MPA), exercising which the BCCI hawks have threatened to pull out of ICC events like Champions Trophy.

It has said BCCI has limited options to prevent ICC from amending the 2014 constitution (that gave India a larger share in revenue and governance). At best, BCCI can approach the MPA Dispute Resolution Committee for damages.

If the law firm’s assessment is correct, then confrontation will only lead to more embarrassment.

 

[Junaids]

Which is why shrewd business acumen comes with real experience and it trumps any of the fat degrees you quote.Simple Life lessons 101.

Clearly quite the reverse, as the international cricket world only has eight proper teams, ten at most, plus the imaginary wealth supposedly generated by Indian cricket, yet can't even pay its players as much money as Australian Rules football - a game which is barely even played in Australia's first and third cities of Sydney and Brisbane!

Running cricket purely as a business has made it a basket case in the image of its inept custodians at the BCCI. Incompetents who squander even more money than they earn and rely on welfare handouts to pay the bills.

Cricket is an unusual game. Test cricket is struggling in Asia. ODI cricket is close to death outside Asia. T20 cricket fills stadia, but only when tickets cost around 10% of a Test Day ticket.

Cricket doesn't need to be run by businessmen. It needs to be curated by highly trained administrators who have the academic (financial, professional and ethical) training to balance short-term profit against the over-riding principle to protect and develop the game.

Which is why the ECB should never have been able to take cricket off Free To Air TV in favour of a higher offer from Pay TV. It was the equivalent of unprotected promiscuity. The patient had a lot of fun in the short term, but now he is dying of AIDS.

Cricket's administrators need to understand - as Woolf pointed out - that their overriding responsibility is as the Curators of Cricket. Optimising revenue gives them a tool with which to do it, but they need to understand that the priority when conflicts arise is the game, not the money.

 

[Tusker]

Clearly quite the reverse, as the international cricket world only has eight proper teams, ten at most, plus the imaginary wealth supposedly generated by Indian cricket, yet can't even pay its players as much money as Australian Rules football - a game which is barely even played in Australia's first and third cities of Sydney and Brisbane!

Running cricket purely as a business has made it a basket case in the image of its inept custodians at the BCCI. Incompetents who squander even more money than they earn and rely on welfare handouts to pay the bills.

Are you now come to the point where you are believing in your own Trolling as you seemed to have found enough gullible folks ?

 

[Junaids]

Are you now come to the point where you are believing in your own Trolling as you seemed to have found enough gullible folks ?

My friend, I actually believe what I've been posting about the BCCI.

I don't doubt its income, but I think that You Know Who has been using it for half a decade as his personal piggy bank to buy votes.

And he then seized upon ICC money as a means of sourcing even more cash for votes.

Sadly the Indian sport landscape is so feeble that modern sports governance training and qualifications have never taken root.

Rather, upper class wealthy Indians use such senior positions of sporting office as a status symbol, and because they don't even really know what a conflict of interest is they have no scruples or ethical grounding to stop them from treating the sport's money as their personal lobbying budget.

You would think that after the Chennai Super Fix debacle that Srinivasan would be under a longer ban than Sepp Blatter. But no.

 

[Tusker]

My friend, I actually believe what I've been posting about the BCCI.

Based on what ? Thats the million $ question. Your own troll posts and the subsequent gullible fish caught do not count as credible evidence. That is squarely the SharyarKhan territory. However if you by any remote chance are actually serious (highly unlikely) then please post some credible evidence in the form of news article/blogs/etc from reputable sources.

PS: This is not to say that your posts aren't enjoyable. Not at all.

 

[cricketjoshila]

What exactly has any of that got to do with ICC’s revenue sharing model. Fyi the current offer on the table for BCCI this cycle (excluding the 2016 World T20 which India has already hosted) is around $400 mil + over 100 mil in hosting fees for upcoming 2021 CT and 2023 WC. So all in all BCCI is actually set to receive at least $400 mil more than SL this cycle.


Btw whatever happened to that show cause notice that you were blabbering on about. Got lost in the mail or something?

The hosting fees foes towards the expenses of hosting the tournament and not to the boards coffers.There is a hosting committee that looks after the expenses.So no 100mn is coming to India.Its 393mn.Thats it.

Sri Lanka's GDP is around 90bn USD India's around 2.5tn in 2017.Indian economy is projected to be 4th largest by 2020.Considering this revenue cycle runs till 2023 there is no justification for SL to receive 132mn and India 393mn.

The BCCI has already announced that sending a team to CT by no means BCCI has given up on any of its legal rights.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Sri Lanka's GDP is around 90bn USD India's around 2.5tn in 2017.Indian economy is projected to be 4th largest by 2020.Considering this revenue cycle runs till 2023 there is no justification for SL to receive 132mn and India 393mn.

US's GDP is 19 tn, so based on that logic USACA should demand (19/2.5*570 million) or roughly 3.5 billion dollars from the ICC.

It is not the fault of SL that their GDP is 90 bn or a credit that India's is 2.5 tn, not to mention Lankans per capita is actually higher than India's.

The bottom line is BCCI doesn't work any harder than SLC, nor does Kohli do anything different from Matthews, to warrant such a stark difference in pay raises.

And if the ICC members democratically have a free and fair voting process that is 8-2 or 9-1, it is against the very principles of democracy to circuvent that.

 

[SL_Fan]

The hosting fees foes towards the expenses of hosting the tournament and not to the boards coffers.There is a hosting committee that looks after the expenses.So no 100mn is coming to India.Its 393mn.Thats it.

Sri Lanka's GDP is around 90bn USD India's around 2.5tn in 2017.Indian economy is projected to be 4th largest by 2020.Considering this revenue cycle runs till 2023 there is no justification for SL to receive 132mn and India 393mn.

The BCCI has already announced that sending a team to CT by no means BCCI has given up on any of its legal rights.

Again wth has the national economy got to do with anything. This is about international cricket and ICC’s revenue sharing model.

As for the rest of it rubbish as usual. Of course BCCI stands to gain at least another $100 mil this cycle for hosting a WC, a CT and the World T20 which they have already hosted. Apart from the hosting fees a lot of those allocated funds would also go towards infrastructure spending, marketing and publicity of the game etc within India. So the $100 mil is actually a conservative estimate for 3 ICC tourneys. Also there are other benefits that go with hosting ICC events as well like the creation of jobs, influx of overseas visitors etc and the overall massive economic boost. So all up BCCI stands to gain at least $500 mil this cycle whereas for the other boards outside the Big 3 there are no such sweeteners.

As I said way back it's highly unlikely that BCCI has a legal leg to stand on. If any thing they are the ones most likely to get sued.

BCCI on weak legal ground

Documents HT have accessed suggest BCCI is on weak legal ground. Late in April, the advice of Herbert Smith Freehills, a law firm headquartered in London, was sought about BCCI’s rights under Members Participation Agreement (MPA), exercising which the BCCI hawks have threatened to pull out of ICC events like Champions Trophy.

It has said BCCI has limited options to prevent ICC from amending the 2014 constitution (that gave India a larger share in revenue and governance). At best, BCCI can approach the MPA Dispute Resolution Committee for damages.

If the law firm’s assessment is correct, then confrontation will only lead to more embarrassment.

 

[Tusker]

Based on what ? Thats the million $ question. Your own troll posts and the subsequent gullible fish caught do not count as credible evidence. That is squarely the SharyarKhan territory. However if you by any remote chance are actually serious (highly unlikely) then please post some credible evidence in the form of news article/blogs/etc from reputable sources.

PS: This is not to say that your posts aren't enjoyable. Not at all.

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]
the silence is quite telling