The delusion about the IPL and BCCI not needing any international cricket

[Junaids]

The post by [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] above is just brilliant. I rang my Dad up in England and he thought the same thing!

I think that his points could be simplified to these:

1. Nobody disputes that Indian TV pays the largest amount of money for rights.

2. The BCCI has secretly got itself into a huge mess in recent years by massive overspending.

3. The BCCI has tried to bluff its way out of its financial hole by presenting itself as the financial Godfather of world cricket, to ensure obedience and acquiescence but above all to secure massive ICC handouts to let it pay its bills.

4. This process includes threats to boycott ICC events or to hold a very long (or multiple) IPLs, but the BCCI can't really follow through on that threat without either finding the rest of the world refusing to release players or else having to offer massively inflated salaries for players to turn their backs on official cricket. Which the BCCI is in no position to do: it needs to massively cut its spending, not increase it.

5. The BCCI could bluff and bully its way to what it wanted before. But Manohar knew exactly the degree to which the BCCI was overspending and insolvent without ICC handouts. As soon as he took over the ICC, the BCCI's dirty little financial secret was out.

Hopefully cool heads will prevail now. A compromise will be worked out and we will all live happily ever after.

But the BCCI's financial weakness is out in the open now. If they have any sense at all they will take a good offer and then turn into good global cricket citizens, and stop trying to extort everyone else to pay for their overspending.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Can those who claim that BCCI is in financial mess tell me when was the last time BCCI made a loss?

Heck the INTEREST AMOUNT FROM THE MONEY KEPT IN BANK WAS $27MN.

But then again the same people think Tendulkar was a poor guy looking for county contracts but didnot get one as he was not good enough.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I think, BCCI is caught in their own trap here.

It's true that, most cricket money (I won't go to %, as I don't know) in generated by Indian companies & broadcasters. Last year, a triangular between WI, SAF & AUS was title sponsored by "Cycle Pure Agarbati.......". This is because, cricket is extremely popular in South Asia, & simply by volume, IND is the biggest market. But, I am not sure about the claim that, it's only because IND plays Cricket & Indians watch their players - or other way, BCCI can make same amount of money without participating in ICC events, rather declaring Ranji & IPL Champions as world champion, ala USA style.

Few years back, BCCI used to arrange Challenger Cup between IND A, B, C (Or Red, Blue, Green), with almost every of their Internationals & those were meaningful matches, as used for selection. I have hardly seen any media hype for those (probably telecasted only by DD Sports, not even DD National) & the stadiums were not sold out either for a far cheaper ticket. Therefore, I am pretty sure that majority of Indian people want to see IND taking on International teams, zenith of which is ICC events. Here comparison with North American franchise leagues is a bit foolish, because Baseball, Football (Yank style), Ice Hockey & Basketball was played by MLB, NFL, NHL & NBA franchise for decades, before International - these are not Country specific game; while Cricket is primarily a game between countries. IPL can build that brand image, but it'll take many, many years - for the time being, I am not sure what % of Indian would like to see Kohli playing with AB (RCB) or against AB (CT).

Coming to boycotting ICC events, I don't think it's so simple. BCCI's most money comes from sponsors & broadcasters - not sure, if their major sponsors will be too happy, if BCCI stops participating ICC events. I am not sure if they bother more for the love of BCCI or return on their investment - obviously I don't believe that sponsors will appreciate IND A vs IND B, instead of IND vs PAK, or IND vs AUS in CT SF, but I might be wrong. Every such contracts (sponsorship & broadcast) actually has some quality & quantity clause - the 100% payment of the contract is subject to minimum number of matches by their brand ambassador (here team IND) & against whom - obviously, I won't have paid same money for IND playing a triangular with Afghans & Irish boys, instead of CT, but may be Indian companies will give that for the respect of BCCI's moral stand.

Regarding BCCI's expenses, what [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] has said, may be true, but it can be manageable (simple BCCI'll reduce is expenditure), but not sure if it's manageable to satisfy the sponsors & mass people, who might not like to watch IPL during ICC events (I am SURE, BCCI can do this - mini IPL during CT & pull some players at least from teams outside ENG & AUS). It doesn't touch bilateral, therefore no point discussing it - if IND agrees 5 ODI at UAE against PAK, tomorrow, Shariar will be the first man to alter his vote, therefore I don't think it's even a discussion point.

There is one more small factor - now, BCCI is bullying BPL, PSL, CPL even BB, by blocking their players. Once EPL (cricket) starts, the scenario will change - not sure about the financials, but it won't be walk over for IPL, (@Hitwicket, can you please give some estimates about some figures?). Many, players won't risk their National spot, for playing IPL, if he has an alternate contract at EPL, while unless BCCI releases it's players for EPL, I am sure ECB will do the same for it's players - OR may be even for anyone that plays EPL.

BUT, what is the critical factor here & that's exactly where BCCI is caught, is that this revenue sharing model is for 2015-2023 period, which includes the 2023 WC & IND is the host. Now, boycotting ICC events means, risking the hosting rights of 2023 WC, unless off course some might argue that IND will be hosting that WC without participating & BCCI will arrange IPL during that WC, again buying out some players, which they definitely can do. If ICL can buy almost entire PAK team, BCCI can buy at least half of world cricket for sure - still there will be a WC & I'll expect Sanzamul to win it for us, instead of if not Sakib - this is where the difference between New York Yankees & Mumbai Indians.

So,there are 5 factors in my long story (not is priority)

1. BCCI's internal expense (or that lavish life style)
2. Sponsorship & broadcasting contracts/money
3. Financial success of IPL (simple, if they are to buy out players for mark-up, it simply increases cost - New York Cosmos survived 3 years)
4. Public sentiments & political pressure from opposition
5. WC 2023 hosting rights

The key to bullying is that, you always present yourself more powerful than you are & never allow secrets get out of your pocket. This guy Manohar must have seen much, much more than what we can regarding those 5 points - called the bluff. Now, BCCI has even made it worse by declining that extra 100mn - it's has come to a standout of withdrawing from CT or play according to ICC's play book.

Personally, I do feel Cricket definitely needs BCCI (IND) for it's growth, but same is true for BCCI (IND) as well, actually more, as long as Empire is strong.

Rather than listening to the cock bull stories of someone,did you check out the BCCI Balance sheet?No i guess.

 

[jagatk]

The post by [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] above is just brilliant. I rang my Dad up in England and he thought the same thing!

I think that his points could be simplified to these:

1. Nobody disputes that Indian TV pays the largest amount of money for rights.

2. The BCCI has secretly got itself into a huge mess in recent years by massive overspending.

3. The BCCI has tried to bluff its way out of its financial hole by presenting itself as the financial Godfather of world cricket, to ensure obedience and acquiescence but above all to secure massive ICC handouts to let it pay its bills.

4. This process includes threats to boycott ICC events or to hold a very long (or multiple) IPLs, but the BCCI can't really follow through on that threat without either finding the rest of the world refusing to release players or else having to offer massively inflated salaries for players to turn their backs on official cricket. Which the BCCI is in no position to do: it needs to massively cut its spending, not increase it.

5. The BCCI could bluff and bully its way to what it wanted before. But Manohar knew exactly the degree to which the BCCI was overspending and insolvent without ICC handouts. As soon as he took over the ICC, the BCCI's dirty little financial secret was out.

Hopefully cool heads will prevail now. A compromise will be worked out and we will all live happily ever after.

But the BCCI's financial weakness is out in the open now. If they have any sense at all they will take a good offer and then turn into good global cricket citizens, and stop trying to extort everyone else to pay for their overspending.

Here we go again with another of your BS theories, oh bcci is poor, oh bcci is evil, oh bcci is bankrupt living on handouts. IF YOU HAVE ACTUAL EVIDENCE SHOWING BCCI IS POOR PLEASE SHOW US, IF NOT PLEASE STOP WITH YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES and by evidence i mean cold hard facts not statements or conjectures but actual facts.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I wonder if its not libellous to call a organisation bankrupt.This is criminal allegation.

 

[MMHS]

Rather than listening to the cock bull stories of someone,did you check out the BCCI Balance sheet?No i guess.

I did a bit, but that doesn't matter much - forget that one. As I said, if the earning is less than income, they'll have to adjust their expenses. I tried to see it beyond the payments from ICC - even just with equal money of WICB or PCB, BCCI can manage, but can they manage the other 4 points?

 

[Junaids]

Can those who claim that BCCI is in financial mess tell me when was the last time BCCI made a loss?

Heck the INTEREST AMOUNT FROM THE MONEY KEPT IN BANK WAS $27MN.

But then again the same people think Tendulkar was a poor guy looking for county contracts but didnot get one as he was not good enough.

Try reading page 149 of their own annual report.

http://relaunch-live.s3.amazonaws.c...ual Report 2015-16_FOR BCCI WEBSITE_FINAL.pdf

The BCCI would be loss-making without the handouts from the ICC. It's in their own annual report!

And have you seen what they are overspending on?

They spent a total of 1,250 crore rupees. But only 45 crore was on the national team and another 335 crore on all other cricket-related expenses such as pensions.

But they spent 721 crore on payoffs to state associations.

No wonder they are insolvent without ICC handouts. I'm surprised that nobody at the ICC had bothered to read the accounts like I just did.

The BCCI is one mega-spending cricket Board. And if they don't get their ICC handout, their own published accounts say that they would be trading at a loss.

 

[MMHS]

The post by [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] above is just brilliant. I rang my Dad up in England and he thought the same thing!

I think that his points could be simplified to these:

1. Nobody disputes that Indian TV pays the largest amount of money for rights.

2. The BCCI has secretly got itself into a huge mess in recent years by massive overspending.

3. The BCCI has tried to bluff its way out of its financial hole by presenting itself as the financial Godfather of world cricket, to ensure obedience and acquiescence but above all to secure massive ICC handouts to let it pay its bills.

4. This process includes threats to boycott ICC events or to hold a very long (or multiple) IPLs, but the BCCI can't really follow through on that threat without either finding the rest of the world refusing to release players or else having to offer massively inflated salaries for players to turn their backs on official cricket. Which the BCCI is in no position to do: it needs to massively cut its spending, not increase it.

5. The BCCI could bluff and bully its way to what it wanted before. But Manohar knew exactly the degree to which the BCCI was overspending and insolvent without ICC handouts. As soon as he took over the ICC, the BCCI's dirty little financial secret was out.

Hopefully cool heads will prevail now. A compromise will be worked out and we will all live happily ever after.

But the BCCI's financial weakness is out in the open now. If they have any sense at all they will take a good offer and then turn into good global cricket citizens, and stop trying to extort everyone else to pay for their overspending.

I see it more of a tactical challenge than financial, which probably is manageable by adjusting spending, in case of lowering earnings. But, can Bcci risk hosting right of 2023 WC? Or, manage 1.3 billion Cricket mad Indians, who want to see their players dominating world cricket?

 

[Junaids]

I see it more of a tactical challenge than financial, which probably is manageable by adjusting spending, in case of lowering earnings. But, can Bcci risk hosting right of 2023 WC? Or, manage 1.3 billion Cricket mad Indians, who want to see their players dominating world cricket?

I'm not sure that the BCCI can get their spending under control.

The amounts in their own published annual report are mind-boggling.

They pay $722 million per year to the State Associations - sixteen times as much as they spend on their cricketers.

But they also report that they owe a liability of $1.256 billion to the state cricket associations. (1256 crore rupees, compared with a total of 0.17 crore rupees in the pension fund for past and current players).

These are enormous sums.

 

[Junaids]

I'm not sure that the BCCI can get their spending under control.

The amounts in their own published annual report are mind-boggling.

They pay $722 million per year to the State Associations - sixteen times as much as they spend on their cricketers.

But they also report that they owe a liability of $1.256 billion to the state cricket associations. (1256 crore rupees, compared with a total of 0.17 crore rupees in the pension fund for past and current players).

These are enormous sums.

Apologies, my conversions were wrong. Just read my sums in crore rupees and ignore the dollar amounts.

 

[MenInG]

I wonder if its not libellous to call a organisation bankrupt.This is criminal allegation.

Calm down a bit pls. You are destroying discussion now by overreacting.

 

[IMMY69]

I wonder if its not libellous to call a organisation bankrupt.This is criminal allegation.

Who has alleged that the BCCI is bankrupt?

Criminal Allegation?

Honestly what have you been smoking?

I get nationalism and loyalty but you're on a completely different level.

You can say the same things again and again doesn't make them true.

 

[jagatk]

Try reading page 149 of their own annual report.

http://relaunch-live.s3.amazonaws.c...ual Report 2015-16_FOR BCCI WEBSITE_FINAL.pdf

The BCCI would be loss-making without the handouts from the ICC. It's in their own annual report!

And have you seen what they are overspending on?

They spent a total of 1,250 crore rupees. But only 45 crore was on the national team and another 335 crore on all other cricket-related expenses such as pensions.

But they spent 721 crore on payoffs to state associations.

No wonder they are insolvent without ICC handouts. I'm surprised that nobody at the ICC had bothered to read the accounts like I just did.

The BCCI is one mega-spending cricket Board. And if they don't get their ICC handout, their own published accounts say that they would be trading at a loss.

Again you take stats and butcher them and see it without context. If india did not have ICC revenues which amount to 175 crore do you see bcci paying extra 300 crore it paid to state associations an amount which was zero in previous year so clearly a one off payment, if they didn't have the money they won't have paid extra. Take that 300 crore out and we still come through in a 236 crore surplus. It works both ways you know, you have money then you spend it, you don't have it they won't spend it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I did a bit, but that doesn't matter much - forget that one. As I said, if the earning is less than income, they'll have to adjust their expenses. I tried to see it beyond the payments from ICC - even just with equal money of WICB or PCB, BCCI can manage, but can they manage the other 4 points?

1.The IPL salary is artificially capped.Almost every team is owned by billionaires or billion dollar corporations.The cap is close to 10mn USD at this time. It should not be an issue if its raised 3 times or more.Owning a sporting team is a sign of prestige among the uber rich of India.

2.Public sentiments in India usually go with India,not with ICC or anyone else.The attempt of PCB to gloat about this will further solidify support for BCCI.Remember any attempt for any kind of ban or restriction on India by ICC or its members will change this into a Indian Nation vs ICC match.You believe the govts of various nations will allow a boycott of India?A boycott will never happen.Its highly unlikely that any political party in India will support a move to isolate BCCI or a move where BCCI gets less money.Then there is the PCB angle.

3.If India withdraws from ICC events then there are some possibilities

a)ICC realises that the 20% ask by India is far lesser than the drop in revenue they suffer if India withdraws.They come to a compromise with BCCI regarding revenue and other matters. MOST LIKELY EVENT.

b)ICC realises that the 20% ask by India is far lesser than the drop in revenue they suffer if India withdraws.But ICC is ready to take that loss and reduces the revenue share of other boards and they continue playing like that.BCCI in this case is neither a part of ICC events or host one or anything.But will ICC members take in such a huge reduction in revenue,considering this the reason for the fight. UNLIKELY EVENT.

c)ICC realises that the 20% ask by India is far lesser than the drop in revenue they suffer if India withdraws.But ICC is ready to take that loss and reduces the revenue share of other boards and they continue playing like that an they BAN BCCI from bilaterals as well and ban IPL. Sporting ban on any country has huge diplomatic and political ramifications.If ICC does this then

I.C)The Indian govt will retaliate and ban ICC in India.It will be difficult for sponsors to sponsor ICC and in turn get into legal issues in India.Not to mention the negative publicity any sponsor will garner among Indian public for sponsoring ICC.

II.C)The Indian govt has enough influence in many ICC member countries and their govt to make sure such a ban never happens.Its unlikey that SL/BD/CSA/Carribean countries ban anything Indian.

III.C)The member boards will suffer revenue loss from ICC.Add on to that they wont be able to hold the most lucrative home tour for them,Indian Tour.Double Whammy.Then they will have to match the salaries offered from IPL teams.Triple Whammy.

So in my opinion this is the MOST UNLIKELY EVENT.

I believe i may have answered your questions.

 

[Junaids]

Again you take stats and butcher them and see it without context. If india did not have ICC revenues which amount to 175 crore do you see bcci paying extra 300 crore it paid to state associations an amount which was zero in previous year so clearly a one off payment, if they didn't have the money they won't have paid extra. Take that 300 crore out and we still come through in a 236 crore surplus. It works both ways you know, you have money then you spend it, you don't have it they won't spend it.

Have you seen "Death of a Gentleman"? Because if you haven't, you should.

You see, the question here is "why are they paying the state associations such vast sums?"

The BCCI is paying its state associations far more money than every other cricket board combined does. It's a colossal sum.

Earlier posts implied that the BCCI spends huge amounts on paying the players, paying pensions and building and maintaining stadia. But their own financial reports contradict this totally.

It's very similar to how sportsmen and pop stars run - or should I say ruin - their financial affairs. Huge income, equally huge outlay.

But the BCCI's outlay is bizarre. State associations? Why?

"Death of a Gentleman" makes a strong case for the outlay being the price of patronage.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Who has alleged that the BCCI is bankrupt?

Criminal Allegation?

Honestly what have you been smoking?

I get nationalism and loyalty but you're on a completely different level.

You can say the same things again and again doesn't make them true.

JunaidS has alleged that BCCI is bankrupt. Calling any organisation bankrupt without any evidence is a malafide and false allegation againist them and defamatory.That is criminal.

I am saying it for any organisation not only BCCI.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Again you take stats and butcher them and see it without context. If india did not have ICC revenues which amount to 175 crore do you see bcci paying extra 300 crore it paid to state associations an amount which was zero in previous year so clearly a one off payment, if they didn't have the money they won't have paid extra. Take that 300 crore out and we still come through in a 236 crore surplus. It works both ways you know, you have money then you spend it, you don't have it they won't spend it.

BCCI spent that extra amount on Associations because they got a extraordinary income from compensation of cancellation of CLT20. so the extra amount was given out.

Look up the next years budgeted amounts and you will see ICC income is only 50cr. The surplus also you can see.

Some people are just baiting.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Calm down a bit pls. You are destroying discussion now by overreacting.

I am merely asking.

 

[MMHS]

I'm not sure that the BCCI can get their spending under control.

The amounts in their own published annual report are mind-boggling.

They pay $722 million per year to the State Associations - sixteen times as much as they spend on their cricketers.

But they also report that they owe a liability of $1.256 billion to the state cricket associations. (1256 crore rupees, compared with a total of 0.17 crore rupees in the pension fund for past and current players).

These are enormous sums.

BCCI survived before Big 3, even before Dalmiah, BCCI was rich; even in 70s, Gavaskar didn't join WSC - he was probably the highest earning cricketer in world even then; therefore, BCCI's spending might be too high, but it's manageable - may not be in a month or 2, but over a year or two, should be. I believe amount paid to central contracted players have increased significantly since days before Big 3 - it might go down a bit, still Indian players will be among highest paid players. Same goes to every other expense line item in their P&L.

Bigger challenge is in other financial factor - will Star TV pay the same amount, if they know that team IND won't participate in global events? Even 100% of ICC's income is less than what BCCI earns from their sponsor & broadcasting rights - can they take a risk, which might reduce the bid amount in next round?

I am sure, BCCI was trying to make as bigger pie as possible from ICC, by bullying & using cheap tactics of buying votes from smaller boards. If you notice carefully, they haven't asked for a reduction of other 9 boards money, just wants to take the amount allocated for associates. I think, the motive is very clear - make as much as possible. I was actually surprised why BCB, SLCB, WICB, ZCB & NZCB has voted against BCCI - their money was same in either formula, but they have risked apparently a boycott from BCCI; or even a boycott of ICC events by BCCI reduces their payment. This gave me a clue that, it must something that Manohar & ICC knows, which we don't & they have convinced other boards to remain united.

 

[jagatk]

Have you seen "Death of a Gentleman"? Because if you haven't, you should.

You see, the question here is "why are they paying the state associations such vast sums?"

The BCCI is paying its state associations far more money than every other cricket board combined does. It's a colossal sum.

Earlier posts implied that the BCCI spends huge amounts on paying the players, paying pensions and building and maintaining stadia. But their own financial reports contradict this totally.

It's very similar to how sportsmen and pop stars run - or should I say ruin - their financial affairs. Huge income, equally huge outlay.

But the BCCI's outlay is bizarre. State associations? Why?

"Death of a Gentleman" makes a strong case for the outlay being the price of patronage.

Is it a good movie? might watch it if it is, Now onto the main point, i am not related to bcci so i don't know why they paid big amounts to state, but you side stepped the fact that, they have in a note mentioned that 300 crore amount was paid additional via a working committee decision which clearly suggests it wasn't their annual expected expenditure item but a one off item, now i can't say whether that amount was an unnecessary splurge or not? i don't know but what i know is that it was one off, which won't have been paid most likely if they did not have the income and that is what we are discussing here, if bcci did not the income they won't spend, you say they will but don't back it up with any fact again? but here are mine, bcci's state association exp for previous years were about 250 crores each for 13-14 and 14-15, for 15-16 it was 722 with 300 of it as one-off payment, so there was a clear increase in income for states without the one-off payment so bcci won't have given additional had it not had the money.

 

[jagatk]

BCCI spent that extra amount on Associations because they got a extraordinary income from compensation of cancellation of CLT20. so the extra amount was given out.

Look up the next years budgeted amounts and you will see ICC income is only 50cr. The surplus also you can see.

Some people are just baiting.

Yeah just saw it , arguing the same point mate, if bcci did not have the money it won't have paid an extra sum.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Is it a good movie? might watch it if it is, Now onto the main point, i am not related to bcci so i don't know why they paid big amounts to state, but you side stepped the fact that, they have in a note mentioned that 300 crore amount was paid additional via a working committee decision which clearly suggests it wasn't their annual expected expenditure item but a one off item, now i can't say whether that amount was an unnecessary splurge or not? i don't know but what i know is that it was one off, which won't have been paid most likely if they did not have the income and that is what we are discussing here, if bcci did not the income they won't spend, you say they will but don't back it up with any fact again? but here are mine, bcci's state association exp for previous years were about 250 crores each for 13-14 and 14-15, for 15-16 it was 722 with 300 of it as one-off payment, so there was a clear increase in income for states without the one-off payment so bcci won't have given additional had it not had the money.

That one off payment to associations was because BCCI got one off payment from CLT20 cancellation.

The amounts paid to associations is for payment to players,maintain stadiums,run the state association,pay salaries etc.

Even the international players receive only their retainership Match fees tour fees directly from BCCI.The share of sponsorship/tv deal etc etc is routed through state associations.

This is mainly done for tax purposes and societies act rules.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yeah just saw it , arguing the same point mate, if bcci did not have the money it won't have paid an extra sum.

Check the Interest income.Thats close to $27mn.Think the excess they have in Fixed deposits.Runs into 100s of millions of dollars.

Btw Cricket Australia is likely to make a loss of AUD68mn this year.

 

[MMHS]

1.The IPL salary is artificially capped.Almost every team is owned by billionaires or billion dollar corporations.The cap is close to 10mn USD at this time. It should not be an issue if its raised 3 times or more.Owning a sporting team is a sign of prestige among the uber rich of India.

2.Public sentiments in India usually go with India,not with ICC or anyone else.The attempt of PCB to gloat about this will further solidify support for BCCI.Remember any attempt for any kind of ban or restriction on India by ICC or its members will change this into a Indian Nation vs ICC match.You believe the govts of various nations will allow a boycott of India?A boycott will never happen.Its highly unlikely that any political party in India will support a move to isolate BCCI or a move where BCCI gets less money.Then there is the PCB angle.

3.If India withdraws from ICC events then there are some possibilities

a)ICC realises that the 20% ask by India is far lesser than the drop in revenue they suffer if India withdraws.They come to a compromise with BCCI regarding revenue and other matters. MOST LIKELY EVENT.

b)ICC realises that the 20% ask by India is far lesser than the drop in revenue they suffer if India withdraws.But ICC is ready to take that loss and reduces the revenue share of other boards and they continue playing like that.BCCI in this case is neither a part of ICC events or host one or anything.But will ICC members take in such a huge reduction in revenue,considering this the reason for the fight. UNLIKELY EVENT.

c)ICC realises that the 20% ask by India is far lesser than the drop in revenue they suffer if India withdraws.But ICC is ready to take that loss and reduces the revenue share of other boards and they continue playing like that an they BAN BCCI from bilaterals as well and ban IPL. Sporting ban on any country has huge diplomatic and political ramifications.If ICC does this then

I.C)The Indian govt will retaliate and ban ICC in India.It will be difficult for sponsors to sponsor ICC and in turn get into legal issues in India.Not to mention the negative publicity any sponsor will garner among Indian public for sponsoring ICC.

II.C)The Indian govt has enough influence in many ICC member countries and their govt to make sure such a ban never happens.Its unlikey that SL/BD/CSA/Carribean countries ban anything Indian.

III.C)The member boards will suffer revenue loss from ICC.Add on to that they wont be able to hold the most lucrative home tour for them,Indian Tour.Double Whammy.Then they will have to match the salaries offered from IPL teams.Triple Whammy.

So in my opinion this is the MOST UNLIKELY EVENT.

I believe i may have answered your questions.

Good points, but don't you think that ICC & other boards have thought these before voting? To my surprise, every board, even the smallest ones has voted against BCCI's model, which actually doesn't affect them (It's the associates losing the money, but they don't have voting power). Last time, I think it was 8-2 or 7-3; this time it went to 9-1!!!!

I feel, ICC & it's members have openly challenged BCCI to boycott ICC events & prove their worth. The merits of your theory/points will be validated based on what BCCI does. Personally, I am still not sure, if that 9-1 voting will remain that strong, once negotiation starts at individual board level.

 

[jagatk]

Good points, but don't you think that ICC & other boards have thought these before voting? To my surprise, every board, even the smallest ones has voted against BCCI's model, which actually doesn't affect them (It's the associates losing the money, but they don't have voting power). Last time, I think it was 8-2 or 7-3; this time it went to 9-1!!!!

I feel, ICC & it's members have openly challenged BCCI to boycott ICC events & prove their worth. The merits of your theory/points will be validated based on what BCCI does. Personally, I am still not sure, if that 9-1 voting will remain that strong, once negotiation starts at individual board level.

Well ICC did just pay ZCB 19mn and WICB have been promised 40mn to vote for ICC. Nothing changes your color the way money does

 

[jagatk]

Check the Interest income.Thats close to $27mn.Think the excess they have in Fixed deposits.Runs into 100s of millions of dollars.

Btw Cricket Australia is likely to make a loss of AUD68mn this year.

But they will recuperate most of it with ashes this year, that is not a big issue for them, what is a big issue for CA and which they seem to be blind about is the falling popularity of international cricket in australia, Channel 9 losing $40mn a year is not a good sign for them, add to that they always treat BBL as their step child, if i were CA i would be worried about my cricket home a bit more and less interested in messing icc up alongside the rat.

 

[MMHS]

Well ICC did just pay ZCB 19mn and WICB have been promised 40mn to vote for ICC. Nothing changes your color the way money does

Finger crossed - last time I didn't comment on this topic, don't want to talk too much this time either. One thing for sure - there is zero moral or accountability from either side, in that environment, better not to take any party.

ECB & CA last time aligned with BCCI, because they found more money in that - PCB would have done exactly same, in fact any one. Now, ECB & CA has found that BCCI is making too much with their support, but their plate isn't full enough - so they have gone south. I won't be surprised, if that IPL window starts to narrow down now - countries will play International cricket during IPL.

But, you can't support BCCI in this whole saga either - they started to "buy" votes for their benefit & that has rotten the whole system.

 

[Junaids]

But they will recuperate most of it with ashes this year, that is not a big issue for them, what is a big issue for CA and which they seem to be blind about is the falling popularity of international cricket in australia, Channel 9 losing $40mn a year is not a good sign for them, add to that they always treat BBL as their step child, if i were CA i would be worried about my cricket home a bit more and less interested in messing icc up alongside the rat.

With respect, the source which claimed that Channel 9 was potentially going to lose $40 million is one which should make you smell a rat.

It was a banking briefing based on the fact that the BBL's broadcaster really is now penniless and it was arguing that Channel 9 is now the only broadcaster bidding for terrestrial TV rights in Australia - the law bans home internationals from Pay TV - and that Channel 9 should demand that Cricket Australia throws in exclusive BBL rights into the new broadcast deal for the same money.

That's the problem. A reduction in competition for TV rights.

 

[jagatk]

Finger crossed - last time I didn't comment on this topic, don't want to talk too much this time either. One thing for sure - there is zero moral or accountability from either side, in that environment, better not to take any party.

ECB & CA last time aligned with BCCI, because they found more money in that - PCB would have done exactly same, in fact any one. Now, ECB & CA has found that BCCI is making too much with their support, but their plate isn't full enough - so they have gone south. I won't be surprised, if that IPL window starts to narrow down now - countries will play International cricket during IPL.

But, you can't support BCCI in this whole saga either - they started to "buy" votes for their benefit & that has rotten the whole system.

I don't support bcci my friend, i was very happy when SC decided to step in and teach srinivasan a lesson, even more so when bcci themselves said that big 3 was wrong and there will be a bit of a rollback, but my problem with what is currently happening is, when Big 3 came along, everyone decided to vote for it because they benefited from it one way or other, but now when rollback time comes BCCI is the only party that has been told to pay the bill.

Why can't CA and ECB and everyone else have similar cuts to their income, of course bcci should have the highest cuts but i find it unfair that bcci is the only one alongside ECB who have a nominal amount shaved off who are getting their income reduced.

IPL will never be threatened by western countries, you see ipl has one very big stakeholder that CA, SA, NZC all answer to, the cricketers, when nzc and SA started scheduling cricket tours so as to avoid conflict with ipl it wasn't just for bcci, for starters they were being paid for their player's contribution but other point was players who played were missing out on big money if their country played at same time and they have to miss ipl. SA already have enough issues to deal with like kolpak, they won't want ipl hurting them, NZC are in a similar boat, CA are the only ones who can fight but even there they are facing issues with declining profits, do you want your biggest revenue source hurting you in such a case.

Here Manohar is the front face, others are all in background, individual boards vs BCCI becomes a lot bigger fight because then it ain't one vs many, it is the biggest bully vs a small kid and that never ends well for the kid.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Good points, but don't you think that ICC & other boards have thought these before voting? To my surprise, every board, even the smallest ones has voted against BCCI's model, which actually doesn't affect them (It's the associates losing the money, but they don't have voting power). Last time, I think it was 8-2 or 7-3; this time it went to 9-1!!!!

I feel, ICC & it's members have openly challenged BCCI to boycott ICC events & prove their worth. The merits of your theory/points will be validated based on what BCCI does. Personally, I am still not sure, if that 9-1 voting will remain that strong, once negotiation starts at individual board level.

AFAIK the ICC believes that since the BCCI officials are now under control of the Supreme Court Appointed CoA,the CoA wont let a pull out happen.The very reason this thing is being so hurriedly pushed is because BCCI is in a state of uncertainity now.

But this ICC issue may infact bring them together.The CoA will have to explain why it is wiling to take a loss of more than 900crs to the BCCI(If they accept the 390mn figure) or even more(If the figure stays at 293mn).Then the question will arise how can CoA let BCCI accept a governance change in ICC which will take away their right to schedule bilateral.What if ICC decides to schedule a series during IPL?

The politicians will ask how could CoA accept a governance model to pass where by in future BCCI may face penalties if they dont play Pakistan.

Then the question of this "Independent" director.Will she be from no country?How will it be ensured that she doesnt vote with what her country's vote for.What about the Chairman now having a vote?Whats the guarantee that he wont vote for his country. So tommorow one country may have 3 votes in 15.

Then there is the small factor of BCCI once again becoming subjucated to the "white" boards.

The CoA have also been allegedly played during negotiations.CoA agreed to an amount of 445mn for BCCI plus independence in the scheduling of Bilaterals.The BCCI rep in the ICC meeting asked for the same figure and terms.He was told that at max ICC will give 390mn and thats it.So the CoA also have had a loss of face.(The ICC decreased the amount from 445mn to 390mn, a decrease of 55mn.The ZC has suddenly been given extra 19mn and the WICB 40mn, do the maths)

So its not as simple as it may seem to be.

 

[jagatk]

With respect, the source which claimed that Channel 9 was potentially going to lose $40 million is one which should make you smell a rat.

It was a banking briefing based on the fact that the BBL's broadcaster really is now penniless and it was arguing that Channel 9 is now the only broadcaster bidding for terrestrial TV rights in Australia - the law bans home internationals from Pay TV - and that Channel 9 should demand that Cricket Australia throws in exclusive BBL rights into the new broadcast deal for the same money.

That's the problem. A reduction in competition for TV rights.

I get it that it is could be ploy for channel 9 to get bbl, but banks like UBS don't get involved in such matters normally, the timing i give is suspect, but i have never seen banks openly lobbying for their client like this, unless there was something amiss UBS won't have got involved like this.

 

[Junaids]

AFAIK the ICC believes that since the BCCI officials are now under control of the Supreme Court Appointed CoA,the CoA wont let a pull out happen.The very reason this thing is being so hurriedly pushed is because BCCI is in a state of uncertainity now.

But this ICC issue may infact bring them together.The CoA will have to explain why it is wiling to take a loss of more than 900crs to the BCCI(If they accept the 390mn figure) or even more(If the figure stays at 293mn).Then the question will arise how can CoA let BCCI accept a governance change in ICC which will take away their right to schedule bilateral.What if ICC decides to schedule a series during IPL?

The politicians will ask how could CoA accept a governance model to pass where by in future BCCI may face penalties if they dont play Pakistan.

Then the question of this "Independent" director.Will she be from no country?How will it be ensured that she doesnt vote with what her country's vote for.What about the Chairman now having a vote?Whats the guarantee that he wont vote for his country. So tommorow one country may have 3 votes in 15.

Then there is the small factor of BCCI once again becoming subjucated to the "white" boards.

The CoA have also been allegedly played during negotiations.CoA agreed to an amount of 445mn for BCCI plus independence in the scheduling of Bilaterals.The BCCI rep in the ICC meeting asked for the same figure and terms.He was told that at max ICC will give 390mn and thats it.So the CoA also have had a loss of face.(The ICC decreased the amount from 445mn to 390mn, a decrease of 55mn.The ZC has suddenly been given extra 19mn and the WICB 40mn, do the maths)

So its not as simple as it may seem to be.

The ICC commissioned the Woolf Report which required that all directors act as independent ones and be excused from any decision in which their national origin gave them a conflict of interest.

That's actually good governance.

The problem, with respect, is that your Board and my two Boards (Englishman living in Australia) decided to convert the ICC into a private club in which everyone was supposed to exploit their conflicts of interest!

So, to take the extreme position, if we had proper governance rules the BCCI rightfully shouldn't even have a delegate allowed in the room to vote on what India's payment from the ICC should be.

I happen to agree that Cricket Australia and the ECB should have also lost money. I am incredibly angry with Giles Clarke for his role in this Big Three scam, and I feel that he has brought our country into disrepute by his actions.

The ICC's funds should be used in the first place to ensure that all series are financially guaranteed so that every country hosts every other one for at least a 3 Test series every 4 years with full DRS. That scheduling should be done by the ICC and it should pay for all travel and expenses.

The next priority for the ICC's budget should then be to get all the world's top international cricketers on centralised and equal ICC contracts according to their merit. So Smith = Williamson = Root in terms of income.

Then, and only then, should whatever is left be redistributed to the boards.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

I detest BCCI as much as the next Indian fan. My contempt for their inbred, cliquish style of functioning can hardly be greater.

However, those who are claiming that the BCCI is spendthrift and hinting that their lavish lifestyles are somehow under scrutiny here will need to provide data to convince me.

It is a fact that the quality of cricketing infrastructure in India has risen multifold in the last two decades. For example, fielders used to think twice before diving on outfields risking torn skin. Today, even state level grounds have achieved much higher standards.

Salaries for national and FC players have shot up. They've even disbursed crores to former players.

I won't be surprised if someone unearths financial corruption within the BCCI- but for all that it is for my books one of, if not the, best functioning cricket boards going. When you look at the likes of SLC, PCB, CSA, WICB, even ECB- well, it's hard not to think that the BCCI has done very well for Indian cricket.

 

[Junaids]

I detest BCCI as much as the next Indian fan. My contempt for their inbred, cliquish style of functioning can hardly be greater.

However, those who are claiming that the BCCI is spendthrift and hinting that their lavish lifestyles are somehow under scrutiny here will need to provide data to convince me.

It is a fact that the quality of cricketing infrastructure in India has risen multifold in the last two decades. For example, fielders used to think twice before diving on outfields risking torn skin. Today, even state level grounds have achieved much higher standards.

Salaries for national and FC players have shot up. They've even disbursed crores to former players.

I won't be surprised if someone unearths financial corruption within the BCCI- but for all that it is for my books one of, if not the, best functioning cricket boards going. When you look at the likes of SLC, PCB, CSA, WICB, even ECB- well, it's hard not to think that the BCCI has done very well for Indian cricket.

I actually agree with all of your points.

My scrutiny of the BCCI financial records does not suggest that the BCCI executives are personally profiting financially from abuse of money.

Rather, the payments that you report on infrastructure, salaries and retirement benefits are dwarfed by payments to local associations.

It doesn't look like "lavish lifestyles". But we need to find a way to rule out "cash for votes", because that would probably leave the financial records looking awfully like this.

 

[jagatk]

The ICC commissioned the Woolf Report which required that all directors act as independent ones and be excused from any decision in which their national origin gave them a conflict of interest.

That's actually good governance.

The problem, with respect, is that your Board and my two Boards (Englishman living in Australia) decided to convert the ICC into a private club in which everyone was supposed to exploit their conflicts of interest!

So, to take the extreme position, if we had proper governance rules the BCCI rightfully shouldn't even have a delegate allowed in the room to vote on what India's payment from the ICC should be.

I happen to agree that Cricket Australia and the ECB should have also lost money. I am incredibly angry with Giles Clarke for his role in this Big Three scam, and I feel that he has brought our country into disrepute by his actions.

The ICC's funds should be used in the first place to ensure that all series are financially guaranteed so that every country hosts every other one for at least a 3 Test series every 4 years with full DRS. That scheduling should be done by the ICC and it should pay for all travel and expenses.

The next priority for the ICC's budget should then be to get all the world's top international cricketers on centralised and equal ICC contracts according to their merit. So Smith = Williamson = Root in terms of income.

Then, and only then, should whatever is left be redistributed to the boards.

Those are some seriously out of box ideas there mate, though i don't agree with some.

For starters never have i heard of International organisations paying for member team's travel, it sounds crazy and unnecessarily socialistic.

With player payments again i feel you have gone all karl marx, this isn't everyone gets equal pay world, salaries any way are never based on pure ability in any sport let alone cricket, it is always marketing ability added to on field performances.

The problem with Tests are the audience is dwindling, old white people are watching it but if you notice when those old white dudes go off to a better place, young new white guy isn't replacing him. Tests are dying breed, what icc should be doing is betting big on t20's and by betting big i don't mean playing inconsequential bilaterals but actual meaningful leagues and a proper full blown tournament with 15-20 teams. Though i agree about funding drs, it is a god damn costly thing if you want everyone to use subsidise it a bit.

 

[Junaids]

Those are some seriously out of box ideas there mate, though i don't agree with some.

For starters never have i heard of International organisations paying for member team's travel, it sounds crazy and unnecessarily socialistic.

With player payments again i feel you have gone all karl marx, this isn't everyone gets equal pay world, salaries any way are never based on pure ability in any sport let alone cricket, it is always marketing ability added to on field performances.

The problem with Tests are the audience is dwindling, old white people are watching it but if you notice when those old white dudes go off to a better place, young new white guy isn't replacing him. Tests are dying breed, what icc should be doing is betting big on t20's and by betting big i don't mean playing inconsequential bilaterals but actual meaningful leagues and a proper full blown tournament with 15-20 teams. Though i agree about funding drs, it is a god damn costly thing if you want everyone to use subsidise it a bit.

Firstly, FIFA actually does pay each federation an allowance for travel to and accommodation at its tournaments. They even have to stay at FIFA-approved hotels.

Secondly, I'm arguing for the Kerry Packer model of payment. It's not that every player earns the same amount for playing for his country. It's that every equal player earns the same.

So

Williamson = Root = Smith (= Kohli if India participate)

Starc = Boult = Amir

Handscomb = Babar Azam

Renshaw = Hameed = Sami Aslam

If you do this, you take out most of what drives fixing in international cricket.

If you think of football, Luis Suarez is from a small poor country but he earns according to his talent,not his nationality.

The only way that that can happen in cricket is if the ICC employs all the players.

 

[Ph_11]

I actually agree with all of your points.

My scrutiny of the BCCI financial records does not suggest that the BCCI executives are personally profiting financially from abuse of money.

Rather, the payments that you report on infrastructure, salaries and retirement benefits are dwarfed by payments to local associations.

It doesn't look like "lavish lifestyles". But we need to find a way to rule out "cash for votes", because that would probably leave the financial records looking awfully like this.

Thee
Therer are multiple states and they all have Ranji players.

People are earning living wages and that is what the disbursement is.

Empire is not happy with that.

Can you kindly explain to me wy the empire needs $110 mn for infrastructure.

Can you post one good reason for daylight robbery by the empire.

To my BD and Pak friends we will work our stuff out wit the empire but your treacherous ways will be taken care of. No more playing BD. India gains nothing by playing them.

 

[Junaids]

Thee
Therer are multiple states and they all have Ranji players.

People are earning living wages and that is what the disbursement is.

Empire is not happy with that.

Can you kindly explain to me wy the empire needs $110 mn for infrastructure.

Can you post one good reason for daylight robbery by the empire.

To my BD and Pak friends we will work our stuff out wit the empire but your treacherous ways will be taken care of. No more playing BD. India gains nothing by playing them.

I quite agree that the "Empire" $110 million is ludicrous.

If I have understood correctly, this refers to handouts for hosting the Champions Trophy. The ECB wanted to host the World Test Championship semi-finals and final at Lords and The Oval, from which they would have made huge ground revenue from the hospitality boxes. If I remember rightly - and I possibly don't - at the cutoff date it would have had semi-finals of:

England v Australia
India v Pakistan

But Indian TV money made the ICC cancel the World Test Championship and replace it with the Champions Trophy, which the ECB didn't actually want, because the British public doesn't like 50 over cricket.

So, using their Big Three power, they "negotiated" (with themselves, as the Big Three controls the Finance Committee) a ridiculous subsidy for hosting it. Is that right, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

[HitWicket]

Thee
Therer are multiple states and they all have Ranji players.

People are earning living wages and that is what the disbursement is.

Empire is not happy with that.

Can you kindly explain to me wy the empire needs $110 mn for infrastructure.

Can you post one good reason for daylight robbery by the empire.

To my BD and Pak friends we will work our stuff out wit the empire but your treacherous ways will be taken care of. No more playing BD. India gains nothing by playing them.

Isn't this $110mn you're referring to the declared ICC administration costs? Not sure what this has to do with the ECB or 'the empire' as you seem to like calling them.

 

[jagatk]

Firstly, FIFA actually does pay each federation an allowance for travel to and accommodation at its tournaments. They even have to stay at FIFA-approved hotels.

Secondly, I'm arguing for the Kerry Packer model of payment. It's not that every player earns the same amount for playing for his country. It's that every equal player earns the same.

So

Williamson = Root = Smith (= Kohli if India participate)

Starc = Boult = Amir

Handscomb = Babar Azam

Renshaw = Hameed = Sami Aslam

If you do this, you take out most of what drives fixing in international cricket.

If you think of football, Luis Suarez is from a small poor country but he earns according to his talent,not his nationality.

The only way that that can happen in cricket is if the ICC employs all the players.

Luis suarez gets that money because he plays for Barca not because he deserves it, jesse lingard gets 100k when harry kane gets 60k, heck messi nearly 1.5 times less than tevez, it is never about who deserves what but rather who you work for and how much can they pay.

That system while nice on paper doesn't work as no one will accept it, kohli will say while his stats similar to williamson or root or smith, millions want to watch him on tv and in ground while the fans for other 3 will barely match that even after being combined, what do you say then, because ICC earns not because williamson or smith score centuries but because people watch cricket.

Your system works in domestic format not in an international one as organisations earn for themselves not for the ICC, the shirt sponsorship and other such sponsorships would be for particular team not for all, and even with league it is always teams paying for their players not the league.

 

[Junaids]

Luis suarez gets that money because he plays for Barca not because he deserves it, jesse lingard gets 100k when harry kane gets 60k, heck messi nearly 1.5 times less than tevez, it is never about who deserves what but rather who you work for and how much can they pay.

That system while nice on paper doesn't work as no one will accept it, kohli will say while his stats similar to williamson or root or smith, millions want to watch him on tv and in ground while the fans for other 3 will barely match that even after being combined, what do you say then, because ICC earns not because williamson or smith score centuries but because people watch cricket.

Your system works in domestic format not in an international one as organisations earn for themselves not for the ICC, the shirt sponsorship and other such sponsorships would be for particular team not for all, and even with league it is always teams paying for their players not the league.

The thing is, there are so few international cricket teams - 9 proper teams - that you actually could employ people just like in a domestic league.

Kerry Packer was in the same situation. He only had 3 teams, and he made sure that the wages earned by equivalent players were equal, so:

Ian Chappell = Clive Lloyd = Tony Greig

Rod Marsh = Deryck Murray = Alan Knott

Dennis Lillee = Andy Roberts = Mike Procter

Len Pascoe = Michael Holding = Imran Khan

The players even now comment on how fair he was, and how loyal they were to him because they knew that they weren't being taken advantage of.

Keep international retainers equitable, and allow T20 contracts to allow the likes of Kohli to enrich himself more.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

............
Rather, the payments that you report on infrastructure, salaries and retirement benefits are dwarfed by payments to local associations.

.....

And while OT, this is exactly the nub- there's a hell of a lot of patronage and privilege that is probably going on under this system. God knows what these associations are doing with the money.

An example of privilege that goes under the surface- take a look at this cricinfo link

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/842245.html

We all know who this gent is. Why would he play one FC game? How did he get to play it? Who selected him and why?

I won't answer these questions, because to do so without proof would be unwise. But it's so blatant and disgusting as to be laughable.

However the question is this- for all these shenanigans, are the shenanigans relevant to the main discussion?

 

[jagatk]

The thing is, there are so few international cricket teams - 9 proper teams - that you actually could employ people just like in a domestic league.

Kerry Packer was in the same situation. He only had 3 teams, and he made sure that the wages earned by equivalent players were equal, so:

Ian Chappell = Clive Lloyd = Tony Greig

Rod Marsh = Deryck Murray = Alan Knott

Dennis Lillee = Andy Roberts = Mike Procter

Len Pascoe = Michael Holding = Imran Khan

The players even now comment on how fair he was, and how loyal they were to him because they knew that they weren't being taken advantage of.

Keep international retainers equitable, and allow T20 contracts to allow the likes of Kohli to enrich himself more.

But kerry packer owned the league no other stakeholders in the teams existed because he paid for them, not the case with ICC, ICC can't pay, it must get money from Broadcasters who don't equally pay for all them it is only for India majorly, IPL works because MI has a similar following to RCB and CSK, Australia and England do not have the following india does.

 

[Junaids]

And while OT, this is exactly the nub- there's a hell of a lot of patronage and privilege that is probably going on under this system. God knows what these associations are doing with the money.

An example of privilege that goes under the surface- take a look at this cricinfo link

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/player/842245.html

We all know who this gent is. Why would he play one FC game? How did he get to play it? Who selected him and why?

I won't answer these questions, because to do so without proof would be unwise. But it's so blatant and disgusting as to be laughable.

However the question is this- for all these shenanigans, are the shenanigans relevant to the main discussion?

Well yes, I absolutely think they are.

Because there are only 10 international cricket teams. And 7 of them do not pay a single player anywhere close to as much as I earn. Which makes the entire cricket world economically unbalanced.

And then, in spite of that ridiculous situation, one country gets massive payments from the world governing body, at least three times as big as any other country.

But when you look into its own published financial statements, that board spends hardly any of that money on cricketers past or present, it just diverts it opaquely to by far the world's richest state cricket associations.

 

[jagatk]

Well yes, I absolutely think they are.

Because there are only 10 international cricket teams. And 7 of them do not pay a single player anywhere close to as much as I earn. Which makes the entire cricket world economically unbalanced.

And then, in spite of that ridiculous situation, one country gets massive payments from the world governing body, at least three times as big as any other country.

But when you look into its own published financial statements, that board spends hardly any of that money on cricketers past or present, it just diverts it opaquely to by far the world's richest state cricket associations.

Again you are being unfair on BCCI, the state associations are mostly paying for grass roots cricket, the state associations are the ones who pay for ranji players, ofcourse many of them are corrupt and inept but that should not completely white wash the good they do.

 

[Junaids]

Again you are being unfair on BCCI, the state associations are mostly paying for grass roots cricket, the state associations are the ones who pay for ranji players, ofcourse many of them are corrupt and inept but that should not completely white wash the good they do.

But the state associations get paid 16 times as much as the Indian national team players do!

I put it to you that I doubt that every single non-international Ranji player put together, combined, is paid as much money by the BCCI as Virat Kohli.

So if I am right,at least 95% of the money given by the BCCI to the state associations is not going on player payments. I'd be gobsmacked if even 100 crore of the 721 crore given to the state associations is spent on cricket.

 

[bleaf27]

The post by [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] above is just brilliant. I rang my Dad up in England and he thought the same thing!

I think that his points could be simplified to these:

1. Nobody disputes that Indian TV pays the largest amount of money for rights.

2. The BCCI has secretly got itself into a huge mess in recent years by massive overspending.

3. The BCCI has tried to bluff its way out of its financial hole by presenting itself as the financial Godfather of world cricket, to ensure obedience and acquiescence but above all to secure massive ICC handouts to let it pay its bills.

4. This process includes threats to boycott ICC events or to hold a very long (or multiple) IPLs, but the BCCI can't really follow through on that threat without either finding the rest of the world refusing to release players or else having to offer massively inflated salaries for players to turn their backs on official cricket. Which the BCCI is in no position to do: it needs to massively cut its spending, not increase it.

5. The BCCI could bluff and bully its way to what it wanted before. But Manohar knew exactly the degree to which the BCCI was overspending and insolvent without ICC handouts. As soon as he took over the ICC, the BCCI's dirty little financial secret was out.

Hopefully cool heads will prevail now. A compromise will be worked out and we will all live happily ever after.

But the BCCI's financial weakness is out in the open now. If they have any sense at all they will take a good offer and then turn into good global cricket citizens, and stop trying to extort everyone else to pay for their overspending.

Opinion's aren't facts. You opinion on BCCI's overspending is the only way you justify them asking for a higher paycheck. ICC does not give a damn about how BCCI spends its money thus just the fact that BCCI is being offered a 400 mil is not reflective of what their internal spendings are but rather than what ICC evaluates of their worth. The ICC's incompetency cannot extend beyond the point where they can so grossly miscalculate the worth of one board now , can they ?

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I actually agree with all of your points.

My scrutiny of the BCCI financial records does not suggest that the BCCI executives are personally profiting financially from abuse of money.

Rather, the payments that you report on infrastructure, salaries and retirement benefits are dwarfed by payments to local associations.

It doesn't look like "lavish lifestyles". But we need to find a way to rule out "cash for votes", because that would probably leave the financial records looking awfully like this.

You need to investigate what the local associations are doing before claiming that paying them is not cricket expenditure.

Much of the ground infrastructure, local talent development etc is because of the actions of the State Associations so without looking at their finances it's incorrect to suggest they are not spending it on the game.

 

[Junaids]

You need to investigate what the local associations are doing before claiming that paying them is not cricket expenditure.

Much of the ground infrastructure, local talent development etc is because of the actions of the State Associations so without looking at their finances it's incorrect to suggest they are not spending it on the game.

I couldn't agree with you more strongly!

The Woolf Report in 2012 noted that the existing 7.5% ICC distribution to each country carried no accountability for the Boards in terms of their spending. It explicitly stated that Boards should have to apply for funds prospectively for defined cricket-related expenditure, and that after payment by the ICC the Board would be required to produce receipts for the expenditure in order to receive any more money.

But it was the BCCI that rejected that accountability.

So they are in no position now to say "we spend 721 crore on the state cricket associations, but we can't provide any receipts as justification for that expenditure." They want a colossal subsidy from the rest of the ICC, but they are not willing to say what they want it for.

Remember, the current negotiations cover 2015-2023. But the period up to 2015 involved the BCCI getting the same 7.5% as everybody else.

So if they want a rupee more than 7.5%, they had better be able to justify it.

 

[Ph_11]

I couldn't agree with you more strongly!

The Woolf Report in 2012 noted that the existing 7.5% ICC distribution to each country carried no accountability for the Boards in terms of their spending. It explicitly stated that Boards should have to apply for funds prospectively for defined cricket-related expenditure, and that after payment by the ICC the Board would be required to produce receipts for the expenditure in order to receive any more money.

But it was the BCCI that rejected that accountability.

So they are in no position now to say "we spend 721 crore on the state cricket associations, but we can't provide any receipts as justification for that expenditure." They want a colossal subsidy from the rest of the ICC, but they are not willing to say what they want it for.

Remember, the current negotiations cover 2015-2023. But the period up to 2015 involved the BCCI getting the same 7.5% as everybody else.

So if they want a rupee more than 7.5%, they had better be able to justify it.

Can you justify the $110 mn. Spend some energy on that rather than $50 mn which BCCI is asking for.

 

[MMHS]

AFAIK the ICC believes that since the BCCI officials are now under control of the Supreme Court Appointed CoA,the CoA wont let a pull out happen.The very reason this thing is being so hurriedly pushed is because BCCI is in a state of uncertainity now.

But this ICC issue may infact bring them together.The CoA will have to explain why it is wiling to take a loss of more than 900crs to the BCCI(If they accept the 390mn figure) or even more(If the figure stays at 293mn).Then the question will arise how can CoA let BCCI accept a governance change in ICC which will take away their right to schedule bilateral.What if ICC decides to schedule a series during IPL?

The politicians will ask how could CoA accept a governance model to pass where by in future BCCI may face penalties if they dont play Pakistan.

Then the question of this "Independent" director.Will she be from no country?How will it be ensured that she doesnt vote with what her country's vote for.What about the Chairman now having a vote?Whats the guarantee that he wont vote for his country. So tommorow one country may have 3 votes in 15.

Then there is the small factor of BCCI once again becoming subjucated to the "white" boards.

The CoA have also been allegedly played during negotiations.CoA agreed to an amount of 445mn for BCCI plus independence in the scheduling of Bilaterals.The BCCI rep in the ICC meeting asked for the same figure and terms.He was told that at max ICC will give 390mn and thats it.So the CoA also have had a loss of face.(The ICC decreased the amount from 445mn to 390mn, a decrease of 55mn.The ZC has suddenly been given extra 19mn and the WICB 40mn, do the maths)

So its not as simple as it may seem to be.

Looks like it was simpler than it seemed to be - BCCI was trying to make as much ransom they could bully like the peons & clerks do in Govt. offices holding files, until boss called their names.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Looks like it was simpler than it seemed to be - BCCI was trying to make as much ransom they could bully like the peons & clerks do in Govt. offices holding files, until boss called their names.

Those same peons and clerks think that they own the system.

 

[MMHS]

Those same peons and clerks think that they own the system.

More than system, they believe they represent mass Indian population, their preference & their passion ..........

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Looks like it was simpler than it seemed to be - BCCI was trying to make as much ransom they could bully like the peons & clerks do in Govt. offices holding files, until boss called their names.

That guy is full of delusions and hallucinations. He claimed back in 2015 that Dale Steyn would not be touring Bangladesh...Steyn ended up as the Man of the Series.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Former Pakistan all-rounder Shahid Afridi said on a podcast show:

"Look, money has come in, things have changed. Cricket ek business ban gaya hai, pehle ek sport tha (Cricket has become a business; it used to be a sport), but now it's a business. There's a lot of commercialization, leagues are happening everywhere in the world. Honestly, the IPL has opened the eyes of all leagues with the way money is involved in white-ball cricket."

"Previously, there was money in county cricket as well, but it was for a long season of 6 months, and the red ball was involved. I think money is present in every league now because it has become commercialized. Money is coming in and being given to players. Because of this, players are interested ... even if they are not playing for their country, they get opportunities in different leagues, which is good."

"However, playing for the country is a significant achievement. It has its own unique satisfaction. Cricketers who don't get a chance to play for their national teams find opportunities in different leagues, which also brings financial benefits and support for their families."

 

[Mp812]

Be careful what one asks for.
As it is Pakistan cricket is in chaos without Pakistani players playing in IPL. Just for CPL and BBL and other which pay peanuts compared to IPL, many players like Imad, Amir etc have cut short their Pakistani careers and "retired".
Most of the Pakistani star players seem not interested to play domestic cricket (thats what I gather from talk shows and forums). Now if IPL riches were available to them ( dont forget the IPL owners own franchise in other leagues too), and a player was contracted to play 6 monthsa year for any team the franchise owned in any league , even the ones playing domestic cricket, may retire at age 25 to become a Dwayne Bravo, Pollard or Nerine type of franchise cricket mercenary.

 

[JaDed]

Former Pakistan all-rounder Shahid Afridi said on a podcast show:

"Look, money has come in, things have changed. Cricket ek business ban gaya hai, pehle ek sport tha (Cricket has become a business; it used to be a sport), but now it's a business. There's a lot of commercialization, leagues are happening everywhere in the world. Honestly, the IPL has opened the eyes of all leagues with the way money is involved in white-ball cricket."

"Previously, there was money in county cricket as well, but it was for a long season of 6 months, and the red ball was involved. I think money is present in every league now because it has become commercialized. Money is coming in and being given to players. Because of this, players are interested ... even if they are not playing for their country, they get opportunities in different leagues, which is good."

"However, playing for the country is a significant achievement. It has its own unique satisfaction. Cricketers who don't get a chance to play for their national teams find opportunities in different leagues, which also brings financial benefits and support for their families."

He is the one to talk about red ball white ball cricket

 

[U$ofA]

Going by the discussion on this thread BCCI was broke and desperate for handouts from the ICC. Pretty much on the cusp of homelessness!

Here we are seven years later. Where does the BCCI stand? Do they have money or not?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Some entertaining posts in this thread about BCCI's financial health and international clout. wonder if the posters would be willing to self critique their posts. '

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

A lot of wishful thinking and aspirations in old posts.
I kinda think that current format of international cricket and tournaments will fade away with the retirement of Kohli. People hardly watch ODI or T20I in India if Kohli is not there.

 

[U$ofA]

Some entertaining posts in this thread about BCCI's financial health and international clout. wonder if the posters would be willing to self critique their posts. '

I would really like to know from them where things stand seven years on.

If BCCI still does not have any money. If so, who does?

 

[charlie007]

Organizations work all the time to reduce their tax liabilities.

 

[FearlessRoar]

IPL contracts will be renewed for Afghan players soon, especially Rahmanaullah Gurbaz

 

[JaDed]

IPL contracts will be renewed for Afghan players soon, especially Rahmanaullah Gurbaz

Would had been doubled had he performed against us like that of Aussies, alas.

 

[shaz619]

IPL contracts will be renewed for Afghan players soon, especially Rahmanaullah Gurbaz

Bharat Ratna to be awarded to each member of the Afghan cricket team

 

[FearlessRoar]

As I think about the IPL's huge impact on cricket, it’s clear we’re in the middle of a big change. Since it started, the IPL has transformed the game, not just in India but everywhere. Players like Rashid Khan have benefited, playing in leagues around the world because of the model the IPL created.

But while the IPL has made cricket more popular, it also raises some important questions. Traditionalists are worried that short leagues are taking the spotlight away from longer formats. We have a lot of leagues now, but can all of them survive? The competition is tough, and not every tournament will make it.

The IPL’s financial power is impressive, attracting big investments and driving up media rights. But if you’re not part of this booming system, you might be struggling. Look at The Hundred in England—it tries to pull in younger fans, but it just can’t match the IPL's numbers.

We also need to think about how this affects player commitment. Many cricketers are lured by big league contracts, which might weaken their loyalty to national teams. This is concerning, especially as cricket grows, particularly in India where it’s such a big part of the culture and economy.

In the end, while the IPL has definitely lifted cricket, we need to be careful about what this means for the sport’s future. It’s important to find a balance between growing short leagues and keeping the longer formats alive. We should ask ourselves: what kind of cricket do we want to see moving forward?

 

[Aang_The_last_airbender]

As I think about the IPL's huge impact on cricket, it’s clear we’re in the middle of a big change. Since it started, the IPL has transformed the game, not just in India but everywhere. Players like Rashid Khan have benefited, playing in leagues around the world because of the model the IPL created.

But while the IPL has made cricket more popular, it also raises some important questions. Traditionalists are worried that short leagues are taking the spotlight away from longer formats. We have a lot of leagues now, but can all of them survive? The competition is tough, and not every tournament will make it.

The IPL’s financial power is impressive, attracting big investments and driving up media rights. But if you’re not part of this booming system, you might be struggling. Look at The Hundred in England—it tries to pull in younger fans, but it just can’t match the IPL's numbers.

We also need to think about how this affects player commitment. Many cricketers are lured by big league contracts, which might weaken their loyalty to national teams. This is concerning, especially as cricket grows, particularly in India where it’s such a big part of the culture and economy.

In the end, while the IPL has definitely lifted cricket, we need to be careful about what this means for the sport’s future. It’s important to find a balance between growing short leagues and keeping the longer formats alive. We should ask ourselves: what kind of cricket do we want to see moving forward?

Cricket will just become Football, which is infact the biggest sport in the world with club/franchise format being followed all over the world.
ICC needs to transform itself into FIFA like body to stay relevant else it will be just IPL and the big 3 baords.