Shashank Manohar elected unopposed to serve second term as independent ICC chairman [Update #195]

[cricketjoshila]

Can you not understand?? A nation which already has infrastructure and a system does not need as much money as a nation which has nothing. My local mosque doesn't need as much money off donations compared a mosque that still needs to be built..

Some people

Can you not understand that it takes money to maintain that infrastructure?Not forget that there are still places in India that require a lot of money to develop the game.

 

[Napa]

Going by ur logic, China deserves to get a lot of share from FIFA revenues, whereas higher ranked countries with small populations don't deserve to get FIFA revenues

Drop those stupid smileys, they are foolish. It is a combination of population and revenues generated. The time you spent thinking of the China counter-example has been wasted. India produces 70% of ICC's revenues. How much of FIFA's revenues does China produce? Anything more than 5%?

 

[Napa]

Can you not understand that it takes money to maintain that infrastructure?Not forget that there are still places in India that require a lot of money to develop the game.

Exactly, money is needed to keep the infrastructure running. And Indians are being quite generous giving other countries 5X, 10X, or even 20X per capita of what they are getting themselves. But everything has a limit, and giving countries like Ireland 260X per capita is insane.

Glad that joker Manohar is gone.

 

[aloo paratha]

Can you not understand that it takes money to maintain that infrastructure?Not forget that there are still places in India that require a lot of money to develop the game.

Can you not understand that you would still have more than double what anyone else has, plus you make so much off IPL which can be used as well.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Exactly, money is needed to keep the infrastructure running. And Indians are being quite generous giving other countries 5X, 10X, or even 20X per capita of what they are getting themselves. But everything has a limit, and giving countries like Ireland 260X per capita is insane.

Glad that joker Manohar is gone.

Just last month bangalore spent 4.5cr to install new drainage system that makes ground ready for play in minutes.If successful such systems may be installed in all international grounds.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Can you not understand that you would still have more than double what anyone else has, plus you make so much off IPL which can be used as well.

Can you not understand that we spend more as well?

 

[Napa]

Can you not understand that you would still have more than double what anyone else has, plus you make so much off IPL which can be used as well.

Can you understand that it takes a lot more than double the money to provide cricketing facilities to a hundred more teenagers compared to one teenager?

 

[HitWicket]

Can you understand that it takes a lot more than double the money to provide cricketing facilities to a hundred more teenagers compared to one teenager?

Would 100 times more teenagers not be expected to bring in 100x the income to the BCCI through their own sources compared to 1 teenager?

 

[Napa]

Would 100 times more teenagers not be expected to bring in 100x the income to the BCCI through their own sources compared to 1 teenager?

Training for teenagers is subsidized. They at best pay only part of the money needed for their training. The idea of BCCI and other boards being non-profits is that the excess of revenues over costs that they generate is supposed to go to subsidize their training. As the number of teenagers BCCI has to subsidize is 100X, it makes sense that its revenues share also be 100X.

As such BCCI was not getting 100X in the previous scheme, at best it was getting 5X. So it was already getting 20X less than what its target population justifies, now that clown Manohar has tried to reduce it even further.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Would 100 times more teenagers not be expected to bring in 100x the income to the BCCI through their own sources compared to 1 teenager?

Will those 100 all be superstars and ring money?

 

[HateKiller]

Eventful tenure comes to an end. Will be interesting to know the real reason.

 

[HitWicket]

Training for teenagers is subsidized. They at best pay only part of the money needed for their training. The idea of BCCI and other boards being non-profits is that the excess of revenues over costs that they generate is supposed to go to subsidize their training. As the number of teenagers BCCI has to subsidize is 100X, it makes sense that its revenues share also be 100X.

As such BCCI was not getting 100X in the previous scheme, at best it was getting 5X. So it was already getting 20X less than what its target population justifies, now that clown Manohar has tried to reduce it even further.

No it doesn't, the sponsorship money the ICC takes in should be used primarily for the development and expansion of the game across the globe, not to help the BCCI fund a teenager in India who will himself already be bringing more money to the BCCI through their own received profits.

 

[HitWicket]

Will those 100 all be superstars and ring money?

Why would that make any difference? If you want to use the 100x as many (or whatever the real value is) people need 100x the money to manage argument, then surely those 100x as many people should be bringing in 100x as much money into the profits the BCCI are taking in each year (always going to be relative to the countries economy of course though).

 

[aloo paratha]

Can you not understand that we spend more as well?

Which is why you still have more than double what anyone else has.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Drop those stupid smileys, they are foolish. It is a combination of population and revenues generated. The time you spent thinking of the China counter-example has been wasted. India produces 70% of ICC's revenues. How much of FIFA's revenues does China produce? Anything more than 5%?

I'm all for India getting more revenue...actually I think their 20% share is pretty fair for everyone. But there is no "proof" that India generates n% of the ICC's revenue, is there?

If it was just the Indian team, Indian players, Indian fanbase, Indian sponsors, and Indian broadcasters...the BCCI wouldn't need the 9 other teams in a World Cup. They could just play 10 Indian domestic sides, call it a World Cup, and make the same amount of $$$$, no? Its the what the USA does for american football and baseball.

But if you rely on 9 foreign teams and their players, multinational corporations, international broadcasters than India is generating that income through the means of everyone else.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I'm all for India getting more revenue...actually I think their 20% share is pretty fair for everyone. But there is no "proof" that India generates n% of the ICC's revenue, is there?

If it was just the Indian team, Indian players, Indian fanbase, Indian sponsors, and Indian broadcasters...the BCCI wouldn't need the 9 other teams in a World Cup. They could just play 10 Indian domestic sides, call it a World Cup, and make the same amount of $$$$, no? Its the what the USA does for american football and baseball.

But if you rely on 9 foreign teams and their players, multinational corporations, international broadcasters than India is generating that income through the means of everyone else.

If its because of 9 other countries then just drop India and play,see the revenues.Then add India and drop everyone by rotation and see the revenue.

Indians pay to watch India play.Doesnt matter if its SA or AUS or ENGor NZ or WI or BD or SL.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is a good time to thank Shashank Manohar for his work at the ICC and BCCI. Left both in absolute tatters. UN awaits

 

[Shutdown Corner]

If its because of 9 other countries then just drop India and play,see the revenues.Then add India and drop everyone by rotation and see the revenue.

Indians pay to watch India play.Doesnt matter if its SA or AUS or ENGor NZ or WI or BD or SL.

Synergism.

The other 9 countries minus India would make 30% of revenue...I can agree with that. Which is why I don't have an issue with BCCI taking 20% or even 40% of the ICC revenue (as long as the other countries have enough to survive and perhaps even prosper on).

9 countries would make 30%. But India on its own wouldn't make that much.

10 India's would make whatever the Ranji Trophy revenue is which would be 1%.

Indians would rather watch Dale Steyn or Andre Russel bowling to Kohli and Warner than Joginder Sharma or Ashok Dinda bowling to Wasim Jaffer.

Therein lies the major problem and a problem that many people have.

You can have a billion dollars, but if I refuse to sell you a loaf of bread, and I'm the only seller you will be the first billionaire who starves to death.

 

[KevinFern]

This is a good time to thank Shashank Manohar for his work at the ICC and BCCI. Left both in absolute tatters. UN awaits

Is there any truth in the rumors that Manohar struck a deal With CoA and his leaving ICC is part of that deal?

 

[Rayyman]

So who is this Manohar guy again?...

 

[Zak_Fan]

Can you not understand?? A nation which already has infrastructure and a system does not need as much money as a nation which has nothing. My local mosque doesn't need as much money off donations compared a mosque that still needs to be built..

Some people

Wow, so Cricket infrastructure is equivalent to your local mosque?

Maintenance expenditure in India is far far greater than any country in the world. Then there are a vast pool of Cricketers, officials, ground-staff that needs to be paid well. Not to mention, despite BCCI's riches, most stadiums from 90s are sub-standard. All of those require a MAJOR upgradation cost.

Oh, and did I mention that Cricket is still spreading in India at a fast pace? The demand for Cricket infrastructure in many states far exceeds the supply. So think before you throw facepalm at others.

 

[Zak_Fan]

And naturally you'd expect the increased income they're taking in due to the population to be proportional to the increased requirement for spending, just like every other board. The ICC money should be used to further and develop the game as much as possible, particularly in areas it's currently going ok but needs that extra kick to get to the next level.

It should be, but revenue sharing should be done reasonably. $ 110 million commitment to Afganistan and Ireland is just insanely high. Also, if someone must be getting bigger cut, it should be England or Australia where there is hardly much scope to spread Cricket further.

India being a 3rd world country is not even close to reaching it's ultimate Cricketing potential yet. There are still millions to be pumped in every state because more people will be demanding more opportunities and better infrastructure. It may not concern you or others, but it concerns BCCI and Indians.

 

[USofA]

No it doesn't, the sponsorship money the ICC takes in should be used primarily for the development and expansion of the game across the globe, not to help the BCCI fund a teenager in India who will himself already be bringing more money to the BCCI through their own received profits.

It is not being used for global development. Most of it is going to incompetent, corrupt, lazy boards. That too without any requirement from them to improve themselves and become self sufficient. Just giving these boards money (as is being done now) will only encourage incompetency and corruption, and it has.

No issues with the $$ distribution. But $$ handouts must come with requirements to show improvements and a path to self sufficiency. These boards becoming self sufficient will free up more $$ for global development of the game.

 

[USofA]

Synergism.

The other 9 countries minus India would make 30% of revenue...I can agree with that. Which is why I don't have an issue with BCCI taking 20% or even 40% of the ICC revenue (as long as the other countries have enough to survive and perhaps even prosper on).

9 countries would make 30%. But India on its own wouldn't make that much.

10 India's would make whatever the Ranji Trophy revenue is which would be 1%.

Indians would rather watch Dale Steyn or Andre Russel bowling to Kohli and Warner than Joginder Sharma or Ashok Dinda bowling to Wasim Jaffer.

Therein lies the major problem and a problem that many people have.

You can have a billion dollars, but if I refuse to sell you a loaf of bread, and I'm the only seller you will be the first billionaire who starves to death.

What you are saying is perhaps true in the short run only. But I do not see the BCCI just sitting around doing nothing to generate revenue. They did get where they are by waiting for things to happen. They seem to be very pro-active. The last 25-30 years is proof.

So in a hypothetical situation of them playing cricket on their own, I would say they will still end up generating revenues. IPL is proof of that.

 

[Napa]

No it doesn't, the <b>sponsorship money the ICC takes in should be used primarily for the development and expansion of the game across the globe</b>, not to help the BCCI fund a teenager in India who will himself already be bringing more money to the BCCI through their own received profits.

You have a funny idea of "development across the globe" if that means spending $260 per Irish teenager and $1 per Indian teenager. Especially funny as the money is being generated mostly by India, there would be no "sponsorship" money if there were no spectators.

 

[HitWicket]

You have a funny idea of "development across the globe" if that means spending $260 per Irish teenager and $1 per Indian teenager. Especially funny as the money is being generated mostly by India, there would be no "sponsorship" money if there were no spectators.

India is already bringing in the profits itself from its additional population sources through its own income, Ireland for not yet have the infrastructure or the money to build the infrastructure therefore that's where a proportionally higher amount of ICC money should be directed.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Synergism.

The other 9 countries minus India would make 30% of revenue...I can agree with that. Which is why I don't have an issue with BCCI taking 20% or even 40% of the ICC revenue (as long as the other countries have enough to survive and perhaps even prosper on).

9 countries would make 30%. But India on its own wouldn't make that much.

10 India's would make whatever the Ranji Trophy revenue is which would be 1%.

Indians would rather watch Dale Steyn or Andre Russel bowling to Kohli and Warner than Joginder Sharma or Ashok Dinda bowling to Wasim Jaffer.

Therein lies the major problem and a problem that many people have.

You can have a billion dollars, but if I refuse to sell you a loaf of bread, and I'm the only seller you will be the first billionaire who starves to death.

India can always break away players.WI SL BD and SA players will be induced with massive money offers.NZ players will be another option.Without Indian money the boards wont be able to pay players what they pay them today let alone match the massive amounts BCCI will offer.

The thing is i have a billion dollars and there are many sellers.You have little idea how far BCCIs power reach goes.In some countries it reaches the very highest echleons of power.

Also let me tell you that the MPA India signed legally allows Bcci to withdraw from ICC tournaments.

You are assuming that 9 countries will vote out bcci.lolfer.They can try that.

Manohar underestimated it and is on his way out.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Is there any truth in the rumors that Manohar struck a deal With CoA and his leaving ICC is part of that deal?

If they did they will have to reveal it to the supreme court.I doubt they did.They simply cant.

Though the CoA is extremely leak proof,News is that Manohar was told point blank that bcci will not support any of the changes.They will block the reforms in the icc as they have the votes.Failing that they will invoke clauses to in the MPA to withdraw from ICC tournaments.This is why bcci isnt even attending the meeting for test championship.

 

[Napa]

India is already bringing in the profits itself from its additional population sources through its own income, Ireland for not yet have the infrastructure or the money to build the infrastructure therefore that's where a proportionally higher amount of ICC money should be directed.

Proportionately higher is fine, say 10X but not 260X.

Also you keep saying there are other sources of funds. Sponsorships are a major source. If you are to make the argument that India should forgo most of the sponsorship money, you should give an estimate of how much money the other sources generate.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Not too long ago i was told that BCCI should either take what ICC is giving them or leave.I am looking for that thread.

 

[HitWicket]

Proportionately higher is fine, say 10X but not 260X.

Also you keep saying there are other sources of funds. Sponsorships are a major source. If you are to make the argument that India should forgo most of the sponsorship money, you should give an estimate of how much money the other sources generate.

The point is though that it's not the BCCIs sponsorship money, it's the ICCs (independent of which country those sponsors are interested in as a target market). The BCCI have their own sponsors which are being in their own income. I'll pull up the exact figures for you later instead of giving an estimate.

 

[cricketjoshila]

The point is though that it's not the BCCIs sponsorship money, it's the ICCs (independent of which country those sponsors are interested in as a target market). The BCCI have their own sponsors which are being in their own income. I'll pull up the exact figures for you later instead of giving an estimate.

How can it be independent sponsors?If Indian market is the one targetted then BCCI ofcourse has a stake in it.


If the sponsors are independent then BCCI wont be this important.

 

[BeautifulGame]

Any links to that? From what I have read, BCCI's revenue is being cut from 34% to about 25-26% of ICC's revenues

In the new model, the percentage shares of the BCCI and ECB in the total pie have gone down, while that of CA remains roughly the same. But a quick calculation will tell you why the BCCI is unhappy with these models. Not only is there no real formula behind them, but the Indian board takes the biggest hit from the 2014 model.

In that model, for gross ICC revenue of $2.5 billion, the BCCI stood to earn between 17.6-18% of the revenue (between $440-445 million*). In the new model, at the same gross revenue, it gets 10-10.2%.

source

Where did u seriously read BCCI gets 35%? Can u provide the links.
So now do u think BCCI claims are justified considering yourself said BCCI should get 25% ?

 

[spade]

Sad sad day for international cricket, but there is only so much one could withstand and clearly he couldn't take anymore, he has the highest respect from a fellow indian, who stood up for gross injustice rising above nationalism, take a bow Mr Manohar, you will be remembered.

 

[HitWicket]

How can it be independent sponsors?If Indian market is the one targetted then BCCI ofcourse has a stake in it.


If the sponsors are independent then BCCI wont be this important.

No they don't have a stake in it, that's what their own sponsors are for.

I bet De Villiers cricket kit sponsorship is a pretty big value, probably largely for the exposure it'll get in the IPL. Are the BCCI going to start claiming a huge chunk of his sponsorship money as well?

 

[Shutdown Corner]

India can always break away players.WI SL BD and SA players will be induced with massive money offers.NZ players will be another option.Without Indian money the boards wont be able to pay players what they pay them today let alone match the massive amounts BCCI will offer.

If India needs to break away foreign players in order to make money...its not India that is making that money! That is essentially analogous to breaking into your home, stealing your television, selling it for $500 dollars and then claiming that $350 of that money (70%) is all mine.

Or like saying Pakistan's nuclear program is 100% domestic even though AQ Khan essentially stole the designs from other countries.

If I need your wife to cook my dinner...I am not self-sufficient no matter how much money I have or how poor you might be.

You have little idea how far BCCIs power reach goes. In some countries it reaches the very highest echleons of power.

Actually I was the one pushing the conspiracy theory that the BCCI had Taskin banned for chucking by manipulating the umpires or even the Bangalore testing results themselves. A lot of people answered that Taskin wasn't threatening enough for the BCCI to ban, which missed the whole point. That wasn't the reason...he was punished for the Dhoni severed head pictures that was circulating the internet during the Asia Cup 2016 the week before. At least that is the theory that fits the fact that Taskin was cleared in Brisbane with NO CHANGE to his bowling action.

a) BCCI does have the power to do that

and

b) BCCI is a vindictive board as you have repeatedly stated that BCCI will come after Manohar and any boards who have colluded with him during the past few months.

I concur wholeheartedly.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If India needs to break away foreign players in order to make money...its not India that is making that money! That is essentially analogous to breaking into your home, stealing your television, selling it for $500 dollars and then claiming that $350 of that money (70%) is all mine.

Or like saying Pakistan's nuclear program is 100% domestic even though AQ Khan essentially stole the designs from other countries.

If I need your wife to cook my dinner...I am not self-sufficient no matter how much money I have or how poor you might be.



Actually I was the one pushing the conspiracy theory that the BCCI had Taskin banned for chucking by manipulating the umpires or even the Bangalore testing results themselves. A lot of people answered that Taskin wasn't threatening enough for the BCCI to ban, which missed the whole point. That wasn't the reason...he was punished for the Dhoni severed head pictures that was circulating the internet during the Asia Cup 2016 the week before. At least that is the theory that fits the fact that Taskin was cleared in Brisbane with NO CHANGE to his bowling action.

a) BCCI does have the power to do that

and

b) BCCI is a vindictive board as you have repeatedly stated that BCCI will come after Manohar and any boards who have colluded with him during the past few months.

I concur wholeheartedly.

1.Taskin ban had nothing to do with BCCI.He doesnt even bother BCCI.They didnt say anything to Lotus Kamal did they?If Taskin believes the first test was manipulated he can go to CAS.Guess who were involved in scheduling the tri series in Lanka.Who requested whom?

2.LOL.You are mistaken.All the boards can come together and play the CT,they will not be able to bring in much revenue unless India joins them.I am saying that BCCI can break other boards with its money and basically ruin them if it wants by getting their players.

If anyone is stealing money its the smaller boards.Not BCCI.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

1.Taskin ban had nothing to do with BCCI.He doesnt even bother BCCI.They didnt say anything to Lotus Kamal did they?If Taskin believes the first test was manipulated he can go to CAS.Guess who were involved in scheduling the tri series in Lanka.Who requested whom?

Its not about belief. First of all the Test itself is of unreliable sensitivity.

But the issue is, the BCCI has the power and the motive to have banned Taskin. Its possible that they didn't and it was an honest mistake...this is just a plausable theory.

But you can't say for the fact the BCCI didn't have anything to do with it. There is no way to prove it. But BCCI clearly has the ability and a possible reason.

2.LOL.You are mistaken.All the boards can come together and play the CT,they will not be able to bring in much revenue unless India joins them.I am saying that BCCI can break other boards with its money and basically ruin them if it wants by getting their players.

If anyone is stealing money its the smaller boards.Not BCCI.

Define "much"? According to BCCI they would bring in 30% because India generates 70%.

But without the other 9...10 Indian domestic sides would bring in how much? My guess is less than the 30% the other 9 would bring in. Therefore the other 9 are actually more valuable in an overall sense than BCCI.

How much money is the IPL going to generate with just Indian players only?

 

[jagatk]

Its not about belief. First of all the Test itself is of unreliable sensitivity.

But the issue is, the BCCI has the power and the motive to have banned Taskin. Its possible that they didn't and it was an honest mistake...this is just a plausable theory.

But you can't say for the fact the BCCI didn't have anything to do with it. There is no way to prove it. But BCCI clearly has the ability and a possible reason.

So you are basically saying that since there is no definite proof that bcci did not have taskin banned we cannot rule out the possibility that bcci did ban taskin, some great logic there, do you study in the trump school of thought or something. It is like those conspiracy nuts on internet, lizard people exist because no one has proven lizard people don't exist.

Define "much"? According to BCCI they would bring in 30% because India generates 70%.

But without the other 9...10 Indian domestic sides would bring in how much? My guess is less than the 30% the other 9 would bring in. Therefore the other 9 are actually more valuable in an overall sense than BCCI.

How much money is the IPL going to generate with just Indian players only?

Again you are barking up the wrong tree, india is what feeds cricket, if india lost interest in cricket, cricket will be unsustainable for anybody else. What you are talking about will hurt india badly, but the others will be completely wiped out, other than ashes and t20 leagues only indian tour to the host country is what makes money, one of the reasons why they changed formats in 2011 was to avoid a 2007 repeat of india going out early, that wrecks the tv deal as most of the billion people don't care to watch after india is no more in the tournament. India cannot survive at the current stage for a minute without others but others will go defunct without india. Cricket my friend is a very costly sport, and only sustainable source of income is tv deal and when you take out a billion people out of the equation, i don't think you need to be an economist to tell you that the deal won't be nearly the same.

 

[Napa]

India is already bringing in the profits itself from its additional population sources through its own income, Ireland for not yet have the infrastructure or the money to build the infrastructure therefore that's where a proportionally higher amount of ICC money should be directed.

There is something very odd about the idea of a poor country like India subsidizing the development of a game in a rich country like Ireland.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

So you are basically saying that since there is no definite proof that bcci did not have taskin banned we cannot rule out the possibility that bcci did ban taskin, some great logic there, do you study in the trump school of thought or something. It is like those conspiracy nuts on internet, lizard people exist because no one has proven lizard people don't exist.

Motive, capability...its all there. BCCI is a known vindictive board and they are also very powerful. They hamstrung the ICC while crippled with their internal battles with the GOI and SC.

Then there is the small matter of Taskin's action being virtually unchanged to the naked eye. Even the minute change, noticeble only on slow motion replay is in the part of his action which isn't even relevant to the matter of chucking ie once his arm reaches shoulder height to the point of release of the ball. Any number of youtube videos, in slow motion will illustrate that point.

And lastly, the bowling Tests lack both uniformity and sensitivity.

Brian Vitori in the space of 10 months took the Test 3 times and each time returned with a different result! Failed in February 2016, passed a few months later, returned to int'l cricket in November 2016, was reported in his only international match, and then failed the test again in December 2016. Did his action really go from being illegal, to legal again, and then illegal all within the span of 10 months? Very difficult to believe.

Either the tests are flawed, or they are fine but most bowlers would fail.

Again you are barking up the wrong tree, india is what feeds cricket, if india lost interest in cricket, cricket will be unsustainable for anybody else. What you are talking about will hurt india badly, but the others will be completely wiped out, other than ashes and t20 leagues only indian tour to the host country is what makes money, one of the reasons why they changed formats in 2011 was to avoid a 2007 repeat of india going out early, that wrecks the tv deal as most of the billion people don't care to watch after india is no more in the tournament. India cannot survive at the current stage for a minute without others but others will go defunct without india. Cricket my friend is a very costly sport, and only sustainable source of income is tv deal and when you take out a billion people out of the equation, i don't think you need to be an economist to tell you that the deal won't be nearly the same.

Why does no one get that its a integrated and globalized world and economy? Cricket is no different. India cannot exist without the other 9 teams and the other 9 teams cannot exist without India. So why does India believe and propogate a false notion that India alone is more important than everyone else?

A train is a massive body relative to a car, but when the two collide the train hits the car with the same force the car hits the train because there is only one collision. The train is merely scratched whereas the car is destroyed, but the train can't claim that it was hit with less force.

India is more valuable, but India cannot be said to be solely generating 70% or whatever % of the revenue because they aren't doing it themself. 6 pall bearers are each supporting 1/6th of the weight regardless of how big or strong they are individually because the thing they are carrying is ONE SINGLE object.

 

[jagatk]

Motive, capability...its all there. BCCI is a known vindictive board and they are also very powerful. They hamstrung the ICC while crippled with their internal battles with the GOI and SC.

Then there is the small matter of Taskin's action being virtually unchanged to the naked eye. Even the minute change, noticeble only on slow motion replay is in the part of his action which isn't even relevant to the matter of chucking ie once his arm reaches shoulder height to the point of release of the ball. Any number of youtube videos, in slow motion will illustrate that point.

And lastly, the bowling Tests lack both uniformity and sensitivity.

Brian Vitori in the space of 10 months took the Test 3 times and each time returned with a different result! Failed in February 2016, passed a few months later, returned to int'l cricket in November 2016, was reported in his only international match, and then failed the test again in December 2016. Did his action really go from being illegal, to legal again, and then illegal all within the span of 10 months? Very difficult to believe.

Either the tests are flawed, or they are fine but most bowlers would fail.

Still you have proffered no proof to your claims that bcci screwed taskin, if bcci really wanted to mess bangla and has so much power with umpires that it can get taskin banned because remember taskin can only be banned if umpires think he is chucking not otherwise, then surely it would be easier to order umpires to fix the game for india rather than having to go through whole banning a bowler and the bureaucratic hassles that entail with it as others too are involved in this process not just umpires unlike on field where umpires are be all and end all, especially when he is not even the best bowler of the team.

Why does no one get that its a integrated and globalized world and economy? Cricket is no different. India cannot exist without the other 9 teams and the other 9 teams cannot exist without India. So why does India believe and propogate a false notion that India alone is more important than everyone else?

A train is a massive body relative to a car, but when the two collide the train hits the car with the same force the car hits the train because there is only one collision. The train is merely scratched whereas the car is destroyed, but the train can't claim that it was hit with less force.

India is more valuable, but India cannot be said to be solely generating 70% or whatever % of the revenue because they aren't doing it themself. 6 pall bearers are each supporting 1/6th of the weight regardless of how big or strong they are individually because the thing they are carrying is ONE SINGLE object.

It is simple maths dude, if i make 100 from organising x matches and if a particular team is what most people pay to watch it can be said that x% of the 100 is attributed to them, it is ridiculous logic to say that they don't matter that much because if others are not present the matches can't happen. Just today i read in the papers that icc allegedly asked star to give rough estimates regarding amount it might for t20 worldcup rights if 2 new tournaments were organized, the amounts were allegedly in range of $40 mn or something and the reason proffered for such low amount was said to be current question marks over icc's relationship with india.

You might like it or not but cricket will crumble without india, not to forget that if push comes to a shove wicb, sa, nzc will eventually side with bcci because it what earns money for them, we already have slc, zlc, bcb on our side, icc will always bend to india until and unless some other country can come along and make as much money out of cricket as india does, which is very unlikely atleast in present.

 

[USofA]

[MENTION=136334]Shutdown Corner[/MENTION], [MENTION=141165]jagatk[/MENTION]

There is a simple way to find out who brings in the money. For the next ICC event request two different TV rights proposals. One with India in it and the other without. The difference should give us the answers.

But that is unnecessary as the ICC is already giving us the answer. The spineless way that they grovel at BCCI's feet shows the importance they give to $$$. The same courtesy is not extended to other boards.

 

[cricketjoshila]

[MENTION=136334]Shutdown Corner[/MENTION], [MENTION=141165]jagatk[/MENTION]

There is a simple way to find out who brings in the money. For the next ICC event request two different TV rights proposals. One with India in it and the other without. The difference should give us the answers.

But that is unnecessary as the ICC is already giving us the answer. The spineless way that they grovel at BCCI's feet shows the importance they give to $$$. The same courtesy is not extended to other boards.

Well the pittance $40mn offered by broadcasters to icc for the two icc T20 WCs show that any doubts over Indias participation will simply kill the value of icc rights.

If reports are to be believed CA and ECB are struggling to sell their own rights.

Icc simply cant take on bcci.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

then surely it would be easier to order umpires to fix the game for india

Once again, it wasn't done out of fear that Bangladesh would beat India - even though they came pretty close. It was done to punish Taskin for that Dhoni severed head photo that went viral. That is the theory.

It is simple maths dude, if i make 100 from organising x matches and if a particular team is what most people pay to watch it can be said that x% of the 100 is attributed to them, it is ridiculous logic to say that they don't matter that much because if others are not present the matches can't happen. Just today i read in the papers that icc allegedly asked star to give rough estimates regarding amount it might for t20 worldcup rights if 2 new tournaments were organized, the amounts were allegedly in range of $40 mn or something and the reason proffered for such low amount was said to be current question marks over icc's relationship with india.

You might like it or not but cricket will crumble without india, not to forget that if push comes to a shove wicb, sa, nzc will eventually side with bcci because it what earns money for them, we already have slc, zlc, bcb on our side, icc will always bend to india until and unless some other country can come along and make as much money out of cricket as india does, which is very unlikely atleast in present.

So what you are saying is because a fertilized embryo spends 9 months in the uterus and only a fraction of a second inside a man's penis, the penis is non essential? Is that correct?

The issue is the presence of those "other" teams is precisely why they should have some substatial value. This "f**K the other 9" attitude from certain posters reveals a greedy and uncharitable personality, in my not so humble opinion. Almost every large company has charitable endeavours even though that goes against the "profit motive" underlying business. And that is on money that is legitimately earned.

And just to reiterate, I have no issues with the BCCI taking 20% or even 30% of the ICC revenues because I know they bring the most money in.

But that shouldn't mean that the BCCI should resort to bribery, thuggery, and/or extortion to get what it wants or attempt to do so.

 

[HitWicket]

If reports are to be believed CA and ECB are struggling to sell their own rights.

I'd be interested if you could actually link to a single reliable report that states that.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I'd be interested if you could actually link to a single reliable report that states that.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ncil-a-reality-check/articleshow/57700939.cms

 

[HitWicket]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ncil-a-reality-check/articleshow/57700939.cms

"What the broadcast industry clearly realises is that Australia and England, the old power centres in cricket, have been struggling to sell their own respective rights that are up for renewal."

Not a clue on the Aussie ones but I can tell you now that the English TV rights haven't even gone to tender yet so the fact the fact the article states that a package that hasn't even been created or put forward to broadcaster yet is currently 'struggling to sell' tells you how reliable it is.

 

[cricketjoshila]

"What the broadcast industry clearly realises is that Australia and England, the old power centres in cricket, have been struggling to sell their own respective rights that are up for renewal."

Not a clue on the Aussie ones but I can tell you now that the English TV rights haven't even gone to tender yet so the fact the fact the article states that a package that hasn't even been created or put forward to broadcaster yet is currently 'struggling to sell' tells you how reliable it is.

Media houses have their own sources which ofcourse you dont have.Thats why they know what the reality is regarding value of the rights of ENG and AUS.

Cricbuzz another reputed cricket news site has reported the same.

 

[Tekcirc]

I'd be interested if you could actually link to a single reliable report that states that.

Since Indian sources are never true

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...s-broadcast-rights-hopes-20161211-gt8kr3.html

 

[cricketjoshila]

Since Indian sources are never true

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...s-broadcast-rights-hopes-20161211-gt8kr3.html

Its difficult to convince a few people that AUS/ENg are no more the financial center of cricket ,but its India..

 

[HitWicket]

Media houses have their own sources which ofcourse you dont have.Thats why they know what the reality is regarding value of the rights of ENG and AUS.

Cricbuzz another reputed cricket news site has reported the same.

Incredible then, Times of India must be one of the only media houses with a time machine. As a result of that it's fairly clear that the English television rights package which doesn't even exist and therefore can't have been put been put forward to broadcasters yet (let alone the media have a clue how they're going to sell) are currently, right now, struggling to sell.

The credibility of the article just went out the window with a single statement. It's the equivalent of a film review article giving statements on the quality of a film that hasn't even started filming yet.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Incredible then, Times of India must be one of the only media houses with a time machine. As a result of that it's fairly clear that the English television rights package which doesn't even exist and therefore can't have been put been put forward to broadcasters yet (let alone the media have a clue how they're going to sell) are currently, right now, struggling to sell.

The credibility of the article just went out the window with a single statement. It's the equivalent of a film review article giving statements on the quality of a film that hasn't even started filming yet.

You sir have no idea.Blinded by your bias.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/06/22/ecb-ready-to-open-battle-for-tv-rights-in-autumn/

ECB has held talks with broadcasters already as reported by English media.Seems the talk didnt go as well as they expected.Keep trying to discredit the truth just like you kept trying to discredit the statements by NZC's CEO regarding how much money they earn from India Tour.

 

[90MPH]

No surprise to see blind BCCI fans celebrating as if their team won a world tournament.

I am sad and disgusted that this man who was full of integrity and only wanted the game of cricket to be more fair and balanced in terms of power and revenue was not supported enough.

There is little hope now because it always needed someone from the inside to take on a Mafia type organisation like the BCCI.

This can happen only in cricket. Shameful.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No surprise to see blind BCCI fans celebrating as if their team won a world tournament.

I am sad and disgusted that this man who was full of integrity and only wanted the game of cricket to be more fair and balanced in terms of power and revenue was not supported enough.

There is little hope now because it always needed someone from the inside to take on a Mafia type organisation like the BCCI.

This can happen only in cricket. Shameful.

Celebrations?You mean the ones that happened when the "In Principle" vote was passed.How BCCI was supposedly brought to its knees.How it was redemption.Etc Etc?

 

[HitWicket]

You sir have no idea.Blinded by your bias.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/06/22/ecb-ready-to-open-battle-for-tv-rights-in-autumn/

ECB has held talks with broadcasters already as reported by English media.Seems the talk didnt go as well as they expected.Keep trying to discredit the truth just like you kept trying to discredit the statements by NZC's CEO regarding how much money they earn from India Tour.

From the article you just linked to : "But before the ECB can go to market they will have to provide details of the domestic Twenty20 competition and the make-up of the international calendar." This wouldn't happen to be the T20 competition that the county chairmen are coming together to vote on next week with no details finalised about it yet would it...?

It's no surprise that despite the huge flaw in the TOI article you posted you'll still blindly follow it however, as we've seen previously you consider 'quotes' more reliable than official financial statements.

 

[HitWicket]

You sir have no idea.Blinded by your bias.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2016/06/22/ecb-ready-to-open-battle-for-tv-rights-in-autumn/

ECB has held talks with broadcasters already as reported by English media.Seems the talk didnt go as well as they expected.Keep trying to discredit the truth just like you kept trying to discredit the statements by NZC's CEO regarding how much money they earn from India Tour.

In addition to that the article you've linked to makes no mention of talks between the ECB and broadcasters like you state other than them informing them that they intend to put the broadcast deal to tender before the originally expected date.

 

[cricketjoshila]

From the article you just linked to : "But before the ECB can go to market they will have to provide details of the domestic Twenty20 competition and the make-up of the international calendar." This wouldn't happen to be the T20 competition that the county chairmen are coming together to vote on next week with no details finalised about it yet would it...?

It's no surprise that despite the huge flaw in the TOI article you posted you'll still blindly follow it however, as we've seen previously you consider 'quotes' more reliable than official financial statements.

Telegraph Sport understands that ECB officials informally told interested broadcasters last week that it intended to go to market before originally planned to seal a deal to run from 2020.

They have already held informal talks.

Because quotes come from people who know how the money is accured.It doesnt come in as one time payment.Even for BCCI its accured over a number of months.

David White the NZC ceo knows more than you or me.

Way back in September 2016,the most credible cricket website reported that CA/ECB etc are looking to pool their rights as they expect a significant reduction in the value of their rights.I cant post the link here because links from that site are not allowed.

 

[USofA]

Once again, it wasn't done out of fear that Bangladesh would beat India - even though they came pretty close. It was done to punish Taskin for that Dhoni severed head photo that went viral. That is the theory.





So what you are saying is because a fertilized embryo spends 9 months in the uterus and only a fraction of a second inside a man's penis, the penis is non essential? Is that correct?

The issue is the presence of those "other" teams is precisely why they should have some substatial value. This "f**K the other 9" attitude from certain posters reveals a greedy and uncharitable personality, in my not so humble opinion. Almost every large company has charitable endeavours even though that goes against the "profit motive" underlying business. And that is on money that is legitimately earned.

And just to reiterate, I have no issues with the BCCI taking 20% or even 30% of the ICC revenues because I know they bring the most money in.

But that shouldn't mean that the BCCI should resort to bribery, thuggery, and/or extortion to get what it wants or attempt to do so.

BCCI can only bribe when someone on the other side is willing/looking to accept it. Thuggery and extortion can only be successful when no one on the other end stands up to repel it.

 

[HitWicket]

They have already held informal talks.

Informally telling someone that you intend to put something to market earlier than expected is nothing like holding financial talks.

Admit it, you referenced an article clearly written by someone fairly uninformed or with an agenda given they're making statements saying that somethings that's not even a product yet it struggling to sell, then proceeded to try and quote another article to back up the authors point only to further confirm that it was a load of speculative drivel written as fact to try and make a point.

 

[USofA]

No surprise to see blind BCCI fans celebrating as if their team won a world tournament.

I am sad and disgusted that this man who was full of integrity and only wanted the game of cricket to be more fair and balanced in terms of power and revenue was not supported enough.

There is little hope now because it always needed someone from the inside to take on a Mafia type organisation like the BCCI.

This can happen only in cricket. Shameful.

I think you pinned too much hope on him. I never had much expectations from him. He has a history of no seeing things through. He usually runs away when the going gets tough.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Informally telling someone that you intend to put something to market earlier than expected is nothing like holding financial talks.

Admit it, you referenced an article clearly written by someone fairly uninformed or with an agenda given they're making statements saying that somethings that's not even a product yet it struggling to sell, then proceeded to try and quote another article to back up the authors point only to further confirm that it was a load of speculative drivel written as fact to try and make a point.

Yes media houses are uninfomed and you are informed.Espncricinfo isnt informed you are,they had said the same thing in september that CA/ECB are going to take a hit.Thats why revenue pooling.

You can keep trying to make it look like all others are ill informed and you are correct,well that is not the case.

 

[HitWicket]

Yes media houses are uninfomed and you are informed.Espncricinfo isnt informed you are,they had said the same thing in september that CA/ECB are going to take a hit.Thats why revenue pooling.

You can keep trying to make it look like all others are ill informed and you are correct,well that is not the case.

No I'm not informed. Because for about the 100th time, how can you be informed on how something is currently selling when it's not even a product yet...

 

[cricketjoshila]

No I'm not informed. Because for about the 100th time, how can you be informed on how something is currently selling when it's not even a product yet...

What do you know about any negotiations that ECB had held with its broadcasters?

Why will ESPNcricinfo lie?Or TOI? They have enough credibility.

 

[HitWicket]

What do you know about any negotiations that ECB had held with its broadcasters?

Why will ESPNcricinfo lie?Or TOI? They have enough credibility.

Well for starters if the media did know about any negotiations they'd state that rather than just stating that they've informally told them that the date the broadcasting tender will be made open is being brought forward as they did in the article above.

The TOI piece author doesn't necessarily have to be lying (although it would help further the point he's trying to make in his article), he could simply have done what you did, have a quick look around found articles from other reliable sources stating the broadcasting rights were going to be opened up to the broadcasters at the end of last year and not realised that they haven't even been put forward yet because of the uncertainty over the T20 competition from 2020 (when the deal would start).

Thirdly, the Cricinfo article you reference is about pooling together the overseas rights due to the decreasing amount of Indian broadcasters (therefore a less competitive market), who in themselves still only make up a small amount of the ECBs broadcasting rights payments.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

BCCI can only bribe when someone on the other side is willing/looking to accept it. Thuggery and extortion can only be successful when no one on the other end stands up to repel it.

True, but who will stand up to the BCCI? Remember the BCCI has immense power, as some Indian posters will kindly remind is in nearly every thread related to India.

 

[amit]

A message to all BCCI supporters here

1. I hate people who are supporting the corrupt BCCI which is using it's power to bully weaker boards. We should be against corruption & bullying and should not support the BCCI at all

2. BCCI supporters need to check out 3 revenue models -
a. Revenue model which existed till 2013
b. Revenue model made by Big 3
c. New revenue model proposed by Shashank Manohar
And then see which is fair. The revenue model proposed by Manohar is giving 2.5 times more than what BCCI was getting till 2013 and even this seems unfairly biased towards BCCI as a fairer model will cut the revenue to about twice of 2013

3. BCCI contributes to only 37.5% of total ICC revenues and not 75% as people say. The 75% comes from matches involving India. Cricket is a sport played by 2 teams, and If we start counting ICC revenues by totalling revenue from matches involving India, Australia, Pakistan, England, etc., the total will come out to be 200 out of which BCCI gives 75. So if we make the total to 100, BCCI's contribution reduces to 37.5%, but still higher than the other boards. So BCCI is right in it's demand for higher share than other members, but wrong in this extra high demand and eating into 34%+ of ICC's revenues in the Big 3 model when they contribute 37.5% themselves

4. I am a patriotic Indian and being a patriotic Indian, I will never want a corrupt organisation to represent my country at a global level and bring disregard to the nation and shame the nation globally like how BCCI is doing. BCCI has made many foreigners hate India Just due to crimes of a few corrupt people of the country, people are hating my country So if u r a true Indian and have even 1 Indian cell in ur blood, then u should hate BCCI which has brought so much of disregard for India

5. When Shashank Manohar was forced to resign as ICC chairman, we saw comments by everyone saying that it is a bad news for cricket, but some "Indian fans" were celebrating and saying it is good for BCCI & Indian cricket. These "Indian fans" need to realise that what is bad for cricket, is bad for Indian cricket as well. No team or board is bigger than the sport. There are many Indians who felt sad at Manohar's resignation

6. BCCI is the biggest reason why ICC was forced to remove the world from the world cup and cut it to just 10 teams from 14, so no one should be a BCCI fan for this reason alone

 

[amit]

Sad sad day for international cricket, but there is only so much one could withstand and clearly he couldn't take anymore, he has the highest respect from a fellow indian, who stood up for gross injustice rising above nationalism, take a bow Mr Manohar, you will be remembered.

Good to see another Indian like me who is standing up against the injustice & bullying

We have someone who calls a [MENTION=138092]spade[/MENTION] a spade

 

[spade]

Good to see another Indian like me who is standing up against the injustice & bullying

We have someone who calls a [MENTION=138092]spade[/MENTION] a spade

Salute you sir, its actually a privilege for me to come across a man of integrity like yourself. Goes on to show we still have people who fights injustice, tooth and nail.

 

[Napa]

Salute you sir, its actually a privilege for me to come across a man of integrity like yourself. Goes on to show we still have people who fights injustice, tooth and nail.

This makes no sense. Manohar wants to give each Irish $260, and each Indian $1. That is your idea of integrity?

 

[amit]

Salute you sir, its actually a privilege for me to come across a man of integrity like yourself. Goes on to show we still have people who fights injustice, tooth and nail.

Same here

 

[amit]

This makes no sense. Manohar wants to give each Irish $260, and each Indian $1. That is your idea of integrity?

It makes no sense to give Ireland just 1/10th of what Zimbabwe are getting. Manohar's model brings Zimbabwe, Ireland & Afghanistan at almost same level of funding, which is very fair

Stop throwing meaningless figures

 

[Napa]

It makes no sense to give Ireland just 1/10th of what Zimbabwe are getting. Manohar's model brings Zimbabwe, Ireland & Afghanistan at almost same level of funding, which is very fair

Stop throwing meaningless figures

Meaningless??? Can you even understand the simplest issue. The issue is BCCI's share being cut.

You are talking about Ireland and Zimb. Fine, cut Zimb's share and give it to Ireland.

Given the level of this discussion I would rather not engage with you any further on this.

 

[amit]

Meaningless??? Can you even understand the simplest issue. The issue is BCCI's share being cut.

You are talking about Ireland and Zimb. Fine, cut Zimb's share and give it to Ireland.

Given the level of this discussion I would rather not engage with you any further on this.

Check the model used till 2013 before Big 3 and check the model proposed by Shashank Manohar. Forget cutting BCCI's share, but BCCI's share is increasing 2.5 times from the earlier model

 

[cricketjoshila]

A message to all BCCI supporters here

1. I hate people who are supporting the corrupt BCCI which is using it's power to bully weaker boards. We should be against corruption & bullying and should not support the BCCI at all

2. BCCI supporters need to check out 3 revenue models -
a. Revenue model which existed till 2013
b. Revenue model made by Big 3
c. New revenue model proposed by Shashank Manohar
And then see which is fair. The revenue model proposed by Manohar is giving 2.5 times more than what BCCI was getting till 2013 and even this seems unfairly biased towards BCCI as a fairer model will cut the revenue to about twice of 2013

3. BCCI contributes to only 37.5% of total ICC revenues and not 75% as people say. The 75% comes from matches involving India. Cricket is a sport played by 2 teams, and If we start counting ICC revenues by totalling revenue from matches involving India, Australia, Pakistan, England, etc., the total will come out to be 200 out of which BCCI gives 75. So if we make the total to 100, BCCI's contribution reduces to 37.5%, but still higher than the other boards. So BCCI is right in it's demand for higher share than other members, but wrong in this extra high demand and eating into 34%+ of ICC's revenues in the Big 3 model when they contribute 37.5% themselves

4. I am a patriotic Indian and being a patriotic Indian, I will never want a corrupt organisation to represent my country at a global level and bring disregard to the nation and shame the nation globally like how BCCI is doing. BCCI has made many foreigners hate India Just due to crimes of a few corrupt people of the country, people are hating my country So if u r a true Indian and have even 1 Indian cell in ur blood, then u should hate BCCI which has brought so much of disregard for India

5. When Shashank Manohar was forced to resign as ICC chairman, we saw comments by everyone saying that it is a bad news for cricket, but some "Indian fans" were celebrating and saying it is good for BCCI & Indian cricket. These "Indian fans" need to realise that what is bad for cricket, is bad for Indian cricket as well. No team or board is bigger than the sport. There are many Indians who felt sad at Manohar's resignation

6. BCCI is the biggest reason why ICC was forced to remove the world from the world cup and cut it to just 10 teams from 14, so no one should be a BCCI fan for this reason alone

So you believe that the

If India plays X team the revenue generated by both teams is equal.Similar is the case if India plays Team Y.

Then let X and Y play and they can replace India matches.No revenue loss.Done deal.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Check the model used till 2013 before Big 3 and check the model proposed by Shashank Manohar. Forget cutting BCCI's share, but BCCI's share is increasing 2.5 times from the earlier model

2013 is over done and finished.It has no significance here.May be you forget that the revenue for last cycle and this cycle is also different.Care posting those figures?

 

[Shutdown Corner]

So you believe that the

If India plays X team the revenue generated by both teams is equal.Similar is the case if India plays Team Y.

Then let X and Y play and they can replace India matches.No revenue loss.Done deal.

X and Y will lose, no one is denying that. BCCI has every right to ask for more money. But it should be reasonable and it should be done properly.

Because if India plays Rest of India, they will also lose. And they will lose more than teams X and Y. Thus X and Y automatically have inherent value which BCCI can't deny.

 

[cricketjoshila]

X and Y will lose, no one is denying that. BCCI has every right to ask for more money. But it should be reasonable and it should be done properly.

Because if India plays Rest of India, they will also lose. And they will lose more than teams X and Y. Thus X and Y automatically have inherent value which BCCI can't deny.

India gets 20%.That was decided and passed by ICC in 2014.why is it unreasonable?

Why will India only play rest of India?India will simply not play ICC tournaments.Are you saying other teams will refuse to India touring them and vice versa?SA lost 200mn Rands because India cut the tour by half,Will they say no to India touring SA?Indian tour gave NZC 35mn profit,will they say no?

This is only one scenario.India can have a 6month long IPL.

 

[HitWicket]

India gets 20%.That was decided and passed by ICC in 2014.why is it unreasonable?

Why will India only play rest of India?India will simply not play ICC tournaments.Are you saying other teams will refuse to India touring them and vice versa?SA lost 200mn Rands because India cut the tour by half,Will they say no to India touring SA?Indian tour gave NZC 35mn profit,will they say no?

This is only one scenario.India can have a 6month long IPL.

Which is still 'profit' that's completely unaccounted for in any of NZCs official financial statements. Even more interesting given NZC don't even have $25mn USD in their accounts despite these $35mn profits.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Which is still 'profit' that's completely unaccounted for in any of NZCs official financial statements. Even more interesting given NZC don't even have $25mn USD in their accounts despite these $35mn profits.

You ofcourse dont have full access to all the details of NZC finances.Your opinion holds little significance in the face of the statements of the NZC CEO David White to reputed media outlets.Guess whose word is credible?

You are making accusations on the NZC CEO of financial illegalities.