Where is the evidence that BCCI "generates 70-80%" of cricket's revenue?

[jagatk]

Now your assumptions about countries, my thinking is you deliberately wan't to hold on to impossible examples without understanding basics as it suits your agenda, your whole per capita income argument for comparing india and england and australia is as logical as your assumption that since football is popular in England and rugby in Australia and both can pay big money so cricket must be popular and it can pay big too.

Cricket is the biggest and most followed sport in India, TV viewership is still growing for cricket, with T-20 worldcup bringing record viewership, Home season was very well followed and IPL ratings until now have been better than last edition.

In England on contrary football rules the roost, cricket is well below and ECB's great plan of maximising its revenues via paid tv are hurting english cricket, you can google last ashes ratings, the situation in australia is similar with channel 9 losing money and being told to drop cricket, in both cases T-20 leagues are the only saving graces but are treated as step childs by the boards who see Tests and international cricket as their first child, something which is not a case with india.

Yes indians earn less than english and australians but indians are your cricket consumers in away that english and aussies are not, the interest in both these countries is well below it is in india, so again your assumptions are faulty, this is becoming a case with most of your theories.

 

[Junaids]

Those are nice assumptions but what is it that backs them up is my problem, you like assumption and stats but you never back up your assumptions with hard ground facts only extrapolations with no relation to current issue from worldcup Football to SPL to Setanta.

Sony paid $918 mn for ipl in 2008 for 10 years, Star paid $750 mn for 6 years in 2012 for indian cricket team rights, Star again will pay anywhere from $1.1 bn to $3.5 bn for icc events for 8 years with india its biggest audience by far, I see the amounts being paid rising over the course of last 8-10 years, the next will be IPL rights if it is a similar no. then you assumption is faulty, it is not then i will agree with your assumption, but right now the nos show me you are talking BS.

I agree with your numbers.

But again, I respectfully ask "how does a country with only 40 million taxpayers, with an economy only 60% of the size of Australia and England combined, generate enough advertising or subscription revenue to pay this?"

 

[jagatk]

I agree with your numbers.

But again, I respectfully ask "how does a country with only 40 million taxpayers, with an economy only 60% of the size of Australia and England combined, generate enough advertising or subscription revenue to pay this?"

For starters tax has absolutely nothing to do with it, india is apparently a very poor country, go tell that the nos that say we as private individuals hold a trillion dollars worth of gold.

As i said your gdp comparisons is an apples and oranges comparison, what does gdp even have to do with it, you are talking 1 revenue source that too from a particular sport which a very small no. of the population spends its money on, if australia and england has a similar % of their population following cricket we could atleast try to compare, but cricket is well below in the list of popular sports following in both those countries, in india it is by far the most popular add to that we outnumber by 13-1.

Also indian gdp is growing at nearly 6-7% while england's is at 2-3 %, IMF expects india to overtake germany and put UK out of top 5 countries in the world by 2022. We are growing unlike england and australia who have both matured.

 

[Junaids]

For starters tax has absolutely nothing to do with it, india is apparently a very poor country, go tell that the nos that say we as private individuals hold a trillion dollars worth of gold.

As i said your gdp comparisons is an apples and oranges comparison, what does gdp even have to do with it, you are talking 1 revenue source that too from a particular sport which a very small no. of the population spends its money on, if australia and england has a similar % of their population following cricket we could atleast try to compare, but cricket is well below in the list of popular sports following in both those countries, in india it is by far the most popular add to that we outnumber by 13-1.

Also indian gdp is growing at nearly 6-7% while england's is at 2-3 %, IMF expects india to overtake germany and put UK out of top 5 countries in the world by 2022. We are growing unlike england and australia who have both matured.

That's an excellent post, so perhaps I should reframe my question.

I know the cost of living in India is lower than it is here in Australia (where I paid $8.60 for 2 Diet Cokes in a cafe yesterday).

But my interpretation of the significance of the "40 million taxpayers" figure is that probably only around 40 million people earn at least US$15,000 per year and can't avoid tax.

Now, advertising is all about selling people stuff. And more money is spent on whatever generates the most money.

But 40 million is actually a pretty narrow tax base. You'd think that the same 40 million people are the ones with the disposable income at whom the adverts are aimed.

And yet the total amount of money in the country is smaller than the UK.

Which makes me seriously question whether the broadcasters are overpaying for the TV rights. Because I can't see how the advertising income pays the bills.

 

[jagatk]

That's an excellent post, so perhaps I should reframe my question.

I know the cost of living in India is lower than it is here in Australia (where I paid $8.60 for 2 Diet Cokes in a cafe yesterday).

But my interpretation of the significance of the "40 million taxpayers" figure is that probably only around 40 million people earn at least US$15,000 per year and can't avoid tax.

Now, advertising is all about selling people stuff. And more money is spent on whatever generates the most money.

But 40 million is actually a pretty narrow tax base. You'd think that the same 40 million people are the ones with the disposable income at whom the adverts are aimed.

And yet the total amount of money in the country is smaller than the UK.

Which makes me seriously question whether the broadcasters are overpaying for the TV rights. Because I can't see how the advertising income pays the bills.

I really can't explain it you in terms that you may want, i am not an economist you see, but i will try, so i hope you indulge my lack of through knowledge in this case.

As i understand india's tax base is lot lower than countries which it can be compared to or are its peer group in case of gdp but that is more down to lack of intensive tax coverage, i am assuming that by tax base you and i both are counting income tax payers rather than indirect tax payers here.

You see if i take a job that earns me say 30k a month in a corporate or for that matter semi corporate office my tax will be deducted at source and paid straight to the government, but majority of the population is not employed in formal sector, for eg. the maid who works at my house by a conservative estimate makes around 20-25k per month after we sum her income from all houses she works at, but she doesn't pay any tax on it even if she is a bit above tax limits.

But that doesn't mean that she won't be paying for tv channels the same way i do, may be not as much as me, but it won't much lower either, tax base never considers this fact. Also we are notorious tax thieves my friend. If IT data is to be believed only 24 lakh or 2.4 million people in india earn above 10 lakh last year, the highest tax bracket, yet indians buy 25 lakh cars every year on an average and luxury cars like bmw, jaguar, audi etc sell 35k cars every year, these cars are well above 10-20 lakh, how do you explain that.

We can spend for what we want, which is why most big companies consider india as a real big part of their income considerations, taxes have very little to do with it.

 

[aniket1911]

LOL, are you kidding me; if they were taking BCCI's word for it, why would they try and short change India by 100's of Millions with the new plan?

I think the bluff has started wearing off and the main boards (plus even BCB, WI etc.) are saying work with our model or else keep your phony threats!

But isn't the opposite just as true? Had India not been generating the said revenue, why did other boards agreed to give lions share to BCCI in first place, given that it was ICC who gave that info not BCCI.

For all we know, they may generate that much or nothing at all. Question is how do we vindicate either of the case?

Bud, with the information available to us, like PCB sueing India for 200 mn $ for not playing two series, CSA incurring a loss in excess of 40 mn $ because of shortened tour, we, thus can apply deductive logic here and construed the former case to be more plausible.

 

[HitWicket]

But isn't the opposite just as true? Had India not been generating the said revenue, why did other boards agreed to give lions share to BCCI in first place, given that it was ICC who gave that info not BCCI.

For all we know, they may generate that much or nothing at all. Question is how do we vindicate either of the case?

Bud, with the information available to us, like PCB sueing India for 200 mn $ for not playing two series, CSA incurring a loss in excess of 40 mn $ because of shortened tour, we, thus can apply deductive logic here and construed the former case to be more plausible.

It was the big 3 who supplied that information apparently.

 

[Junaids]

I seriously recommend that any and all of you consult the financial statements released by the BCCI.

I just did, and I nearly fell off my chair.

Its all on Page 149 onwards here.

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

No wonder they are so desperate for welfare handouts from the ICC. Their spending is astronomical.

They pay 721 crore per year to the state associations compared with 45 crore to the players.

They have a fixed liability in their pension fund to past and present players of 0.17 crore.

But they have a liability of 1256 crore to the state associations.

 

[cricketjoshila]

For starters tax has absolutely nothing to do with it, india is apparently a very poor country, go tell that the nos that say we as private individuals hold a trillion dollars worth of gold.

As i said your gdp comparisons is an apples and oranges comparison, what does gdp even have to do with it, you are talking 1 revenue source that too from a particular sport which a very small no. of the population spends its money on, if australia and england has a similar % of their population following cricket we could atleast try to compare, but cricket is well below in the list of popular sports following in both those countries, in india it is by far the most popular add to that we outnumber by 13-1.

Also indian gdp is growing at nearly 6-7% while england's is at 2-3 %, IMF expects india to overtake germany and put UK out of top 5 countries in the world by 2022. We are growing unlike england and australia who have both matured.

You are forgetting that when internal consumption is to be measured PPP terms are more likely to capture the event.In PPP terms Indian economy is 3rd largest in the world.Its more than twice of UK plus AUS combined.

Latest IMF figures say Indian economy is almost equal to UK and will cross Germany by 2020.

Regarding Taxpayers:India has a huge population of rural people who are not Taxed at all.Doesnt mean they dont have money.Agriculture income is totally tax free.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It was the big 3 who supplied that information apparently.

And ICC accepted it?

 

[Junaids]

You are forgetting that when internal consumption is to be measured PPP terms are more likely to capture the event.In PPP terms Indian economy is 3rd largest in the world.Its more than twice of UK plus AUS combined.

Latest IMF figures say Indian economy is almost equal to UK and will cross Germany by 2020.

Regarding Taxpayers:India has a huge population of rural people who are not Taxed at all.Doesnt mean they dont have money.Agriculture income is totally tax free.

It's been a lot of fun arguing with you these last two days. I have a suspicion that we both take polarised positions but probably have much more common ground than we imagine. I certainly agree with you about how England misused its power at the ICC for decades.

But I'm not sure that the PPP argument is a good one for the BCCI and its supporters to make.

Their argument is that they have more money than other cricket markets and could buy and sell the world's cricketers at the drop of a hat.

But Mitchell Starc isn't going to turn his back on Australia for "what would be a fortune in India and go a long way". He and everyone else would have to be paid money which dwarfs their existing foreign income.

Also, I'm still certain that a compromise will be reached. My guess is $400 million.

By the way, in some ways you would win this argument if the BCCI withdrew India from the Champions Trophy.

The Champions Trophy is just a non-event in England, and it was a stupid mistake to retain England as the venue when the tournament was switched from being the World Test Championship.

50 overs cricket is almost dead in England. It's a mixture of two factors.

Firstly, there used to be three premium limited overs competitions in England on free-to-air TV on BBC1 and BBC2. Now there are none.

Secondly, there hasn't been a 50 overs international shown on British TV since 2005. A generation of youngsters has grown up with no connection to the game at all.

It's my expectation that the Champions League in England is a dead duck whether India plays or not. It's almost worth the BCCI's while to boycott it and then say "we told you so, you need us more than we need you!"

 

[aniket1911]

It was the big 3 who supplied that information apparently.

That brings us to a point I already raised in the post.

But isn't the opposite just as true? Had India not been generating the said revenue, why did other boards agreed to give lions share to BCCI in first place, given that it was ICC who gave that info not BCCI.

Surely, any professional body will dwell over validity of some statement before nodding for such drastic change in the set-up.

 

[jagatk]

It's been a lot of fun arguing with you these last two days. I have a suspicion that we both take polarised positions but probably have much more common ground than we imagine. I certainly agree with you about how England misused its power at the ICC for decades.

But I'm not sure that the PPP argument is a good one for the BCCI and its supporters to make.

Their argument is that they have more money than other cricket markets and could buy and sell the world's cricketers at the drop of a hat.

But Mitchell Starc isn't going to turn his back on Australia for "what would be a fortune in India and go a long way". He and everyone else would have to be paid money which dwarfs their existing foreign income.

Also, I'm still certain that a compromise will be reached. My guess is $400 million.

By the way, in some ways you would win this argument if the BCCI withdrew India from the Champions Trophy.

The Champions Trophy is just a non-event in England, and it was a stupid mistake to retain England as the venue when the tournament was switched from being the World Test Championship.

50 overs cricket is almost dead in England. It's a mixture of two factors.

Firstly, there used to be three premium limited overs competitions in England on free-to-air TV on BBC1 and BBC2. Now there are none.

Secondly, there hasn't been a 50 overs international shown on British TV since 2005. A generation of youngsters has grown up with no connection to the game at all.

It's my expectation that the Champions League in England is a dead duck whether India plays or not. It's almost worth the BCCI's while to boycott it and then say "we told you so, you need us more than we need you!"

Here's a few issues i have with your argument,

1.Aussies and english are the only teams that pay big money to its cricketers others don't, so take those 2 out of the equation but many others will come if they are forced to make a choice.

2. BCCI will never accept $400mn the CoA the actual authority with power were by all reports promised $440 mn why would they accept anything less, CoA aren't mucks either, Of the 2 guys running the show one is a big banker and other was the auditor general of india. This will be a question of prestige for them as well as SC, believe me that is how it is being played out here.

3. By non-event i take it you mean english ratings, given that ashes was bad i doubt this will be better, but star which paid big money for this didn't do so for english public but indian, if it gets indian viewers it will be a success for them and i believe everyone else too. Also most indian matches have been sold out, so india seems to be doing ist part in making CT a success its not india's fault if others fail.

 

[Junaids]

That brings us to a point I already raised in the post.


Surely, any professional body will dwell over validity of some statement before nodding for such drastic change in the set-up.

Absolutely. It couldn't have happened if the ICC had not let the BCCI renounce the Woolf report that the ICC had commisioned!

Under the Woolf Report, the ICC would have had the same standards as other modern sporting governing bodies.

Countries could provide directors, but they had to act independently, and when they had a conflict of interest relating to their national origin they were excluded from the discussion and decision.

N Srinivasan and Giles Clarke were having none of that. They gave the Small Seven boards an ultimatum - sign up for turning the ICC into a Private Club for the Big Three, where we take most of the money and control every committee, or Naughty India will make you go bankrupt. Not so much Good Cop / Bad Cop as Very Bad Cops!

All of the Small Seven knew that the BCCI share of the money stunk and was completely arbitrary, picked out of the air by Srinivasan.

But they felt they had no choice. That doesn't mean that they agreed with the sums.

 

[Junaids]

Here's a few issues i have with your argument,

1.Aussies and english are the only teams that pay big money to its cricketers others don't, so take those 2 out of the equation but many others will come if they are forced to make a choice.

2. BCCI will never accept $400mn the CoA the actual authority with power were by all reports promised $440 mn why would they accept anything less, CoA aren't mucks either, Of the 2 guys running the show one is a big banker and other was the auditor general of india. This will be a question of prestige for them as well as SC, believe me that is how it is being played out here.

3. By non-event i take it you mean english ratings, given that ashes was bad i doubt this will be better, but star which paid big money for this didn't do so for english public but indian, if it gets indian viewers it will be a success for them and i believe everyone else too. Also most indian matches have been sold out, so india seems to be doing ist part in making CT a success its not india's fault if others fail.

All very good points.

But the key to financial security for the Small Seven is pooled TV money and centralised contracts. It seems clear that their Boards are starting to realise this now. It's been too easy for Cricket South Africa, New Zealand Cricket and the WICB to let the IPL pay their players instead of doing it themselves. But now they realise that they have become hostages by that process.

The problem with the Champions Trophy is whether the local organisers can make a profit. It's all very well lots of Indians watching it. But Star paid the ICC long ago for the rights as part of a bigger package.

The local organisers are now faced with half-empty grounds for the non-Asian teams, complete disinterest in the British media and public and no prospect of making a profit.

If I were the BCCI I'd be boycotting it on the slightest pretext, then showing off how badly it did without my country!

 

[Tusker]

Thanks [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION] .

I have to admit that I have a masochistic streak. I have actually enjoyed times when [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] and [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] and others have taught me a lesson.

Naaah ... not me ... not unless you now claim to have gotten over your formula that says OLD > NEW . Even then it wouldn't be a "lesson" it would just be an attempt to introduce facts into our discussion.

I'm simply shocked today though. I had swallowed whole all the talk of how rich the BCCI was.

And it was only when I saw the comments made by BCCI members about the ICC handout offer that I realised that they have such extravagant spending that they are basically cricket's equivalent of Greece: a financial basketcase completely dependent upon handouts. The richest board in the world is so profligate that it is insolvent without handouts!

Mind you, earlier today I was also appalled to learn that Cricket Australia only spends 45% of its income on cricket and the rest on itself.

Handout ? More like recovering stolen goods from BCCI perspective ... No ?

 

[Ph_11]

I think it is 110%. prove otherwise.

Indian economy is bigger tan England.

 

[jagatk]

All very good points.

But the key to financial security for the Small Seven is pooled TV money and centralised contracts. It seems clear that their Boards are starting to realise this now. It's been too easy for Cricket South Africa, New Zealand Cricket and the WICB to let the IPL pay their players instead of doing it themselves. But now they realise that they have become hostages by that process.

The problem with the Champions Trophy is whether the local organisers can make a profit. It's all very well lots of Indians watching it. But Star paid the ICC long ago for the rights as part of a bigger package.

The local organisers are now faced with half-empty grounds for the non-Asian teams, complete disinterest in the British media and public and no prospect of making a profit.

If I were the BCCI I'd be boycotting it on the slightest pretext, then showing off how badly it did without my country!

Central contracts are already there they just aren't that big and given that the boards don't earn much that is hardly a surprise, NZC pays 200,000 as a retainer, SA pays monthly salaries, WICB are corrupt ****** don't expect much from them. The problem is they cannot financially match ipl, this is Hornswoggle vs Bigshow, central contracts can't solve that. Only real solution is grow the sport in their country the way BCCI did.

By local organisation you must mean counties, surely they were paid money for this, wasn't bcci's pet grievance that ecb got paid more than bcci for CT as compared to T-20 WC, what did ecb do with that money?

The pooled interest thing is dead in the water unless BCCI is on board, first thing is that ICC has no fingers in this pie, It is everyman for himself territory, When you talk about pooled rights you need everyone on board including bcci and right now they have benefit joining it, it is a nice paper, indian market is shrinking, we need more avenues, USA is a unexplored market, but that is all it is a paper.

For starters there is no market in USA outside ex countrymen from cricket playing nations and most of them are indians, given how much my american cousins know about cricket i doubt it gets past the first generation either, i am pretty sure cricket is not a viable sport in USA outside that and then too it is only t-20's that can even be sold no one will watch tests there.

The issue is BCCI has no real gain from joining this little league and unless bcci joins it really can't succeed, only way bcci joins it is if they are thrown a bone and pretty good one at that.

 

[Junaids]

Central contracts are already there they just aren't that big and given that the boards don't earn much that is hardly a surprise, NZC pays 200,000 as a retainer, SA pays monthly salaries, WICB are corrupt ****** don't expect much from them. The problem is they cannot financially match ipl, this is Hornswoggle vs Bigshow, central contracts can't solve that. Only real solution is grow the sport in their country the way BCCI did.

By local organisation you must mean counties, surely they were paid money for this, wasn't bcci's pet grievance that ecb got paid more than bcci for CT as compared to T-20 WC, what did ecb do with that money?

The pooled interest thing is dead in the water unless BCCI is on board, first thing is that ICC has no fingers in this pie, It is everyman for himself territory, When you talk about pooled rights you need everyone on board including bcci and right now they have benefit joining it, it is a nice paper, indian market is shrinking, we need more avenues, USA is a unexplored market, but that is all it is a paper.

For starters there is no market in USA outside ex countrymen from cricket playing nations and most of them are indians, given how much my american cousins know about cricket i doubt it gets past the first generation either, i am pretty sure cricket is not a viable sport in USA outside that and then too it is only t-20's that can even be sold no one will watch tests there.

The issue is BCCI has no real gain from joining this little league and unless bcci joins it really can't succeed, only way bcci joins it is if they are thrown a bone and pretty good one at that.

Again, I agree with almost every point, except for one. I think pooled revenue and ICC contracts would benefit everyone - see my thread from a few days ago which was the POTW. If Aussie rules Football can afford it, the non-India cricket world can do it.

Lastly, I've written in the other thread my take on the ECB's absurd payments for the Champions Trophy.

The BCCI is not the only Board to take advantage of the Big Three situation.

The ECB wanted 15 days of Test cricket in London for the World Test Championships semis and final. The hospitality sales and gate receipts would have been enormous.

The ICC decided to cancel that in favour of the Champions Trophy, which only Asian Brits are interested in, because 50 overs is a dying format in England.

But that was okay. The ECB effectively used the Big Three control of every ICC committee to negotiate itself insanely high handouts for hosting an unviable tournament. Problem solved.

It's so much easier when you are negotiating with yourselves, and conflicts of interest aren't discouraged!

 

[jagatk]

Again, I agree with almost every point, except for one. I think pooled revenue and ICC contracts would benefit everyone - see my thread from a few days ago which was the POTW. If Aussie rules Football can afford it, the non-India cricket world can do it.

Lastly, I've written in the other thread my take on the ECB's absurd payments for the Champions Trophy.

The BCCI is not the only Board to take advantage of the Big Three situation.

The ECB wanted 15 days of Test cricket in London for the World Test Championships semis and final. The hospitality sales and gate receipts would have been enormous.

The ICC decided to cancel that in favour of the Champions Trophy, which only Asian Brits are interested in, because 50 overs is a dying format in England.

But that was okay. The ECB effectively used the Big Three control of every ICC committee to negotiate itself insanely high handouts for hosting an unviable tournament. Problem solved.

It's so much easier when you are negotiating with yourselves, and conflicts of interest aren't discouraged!

What thread was it in? you post a lot you know, searching is difficult task then, give me a link to that post i will reply to you on that.

PS. yes i am too lazy to search for stuff.

 

[Junaids]

What thread was it in? you post a lot you know, searching is difficult task then, give me a link to that post i will reply to you on that.

PS. yes i am too lazy to search for stuff.

Here you are!

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?258717-Without-India-what-could-cricket-afford

 

[jagatk]

Here you are!

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?258717-Without-India-what-could-cricket-afford

Already replied to this one mate, your assumption is faulty as you assume a fanbase or audience exists for those players to pay them at current levels without india, which it does not. Just because Aussies watch NRL and AFL and english watch football won't doesn't mean all those people start watching cricket out of the blue.

 

[Tusker]

Already replied to this one mate, your assumption is faulty as you assume a fanbase or audience exists for those players to pay them at current levels without india, which it does not. Just because Aussies watch NRL and AFL and english watch football won't doesn't mean all those people start watching cricket out of the blue.

And moreover what [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] doesnt realize is that if there was soo much money to be made it would have already happened. CA and Ch9 arent the sort of people who would sit on their bums happy with what they have.

 

[Junaids]

And moreover what [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] doesnt realize is that if there was soo much money to be made it would have already happened. CA and Ch9 arent the sort of people who would sit on their bums happy with what they have.

There's nothing directly in it for them short-term.

Pooled revenue and centralised contracts benefits them long-term by ensuring that visiting South African or Kiwi or West Indian teams are at full strength (and not fixing).

Cricket Australia can see an obvious benefit to that. Channel 9 clearly would not, because this is a medium-term insurance policy not an instant rewards one.

 

[Tusker]

There's nothing directly in it for them short-term.

Pooled revenue and centralised contracts benefits them long-term by ensuring that visiting South African or Kiwi or West Indian teams are at full strength (and not fixing).

Cricket Australia can see an obvious benefit to that. Channel 9 clearly would not, because this is a medium-term insurance policy not an instant rewards one.

Sorry makes no sense to me. please elaborate.

 

[Junaids]

Sorry makes no sense to me. please elaborate.

Channel 9 is the broadcaster. They don't care what foreign teams' players are paid. They just want to get the rights at a good price.

Cricket Australia has reason to care. Their international product needs to be competitive, which means that they need the opposition to be at full strength.

Last year we had a half-strength touring West Indies team which was smashed to pieces, while better West Indies players were in Australia at the same time, playing BBL. Matches lasted 3 days, and gate receipts were poor.

It has become clear to Cricket Australia that their product is devalued by poorer boards sending weakened teams because their best players are earning T20 money elsewhere.

So for Cricket Australia, partial or even full pooling of TV revenue is starting to look worthwhile.

And because Cricket Australia management is steeped in the models of governance and funding of all Australian professional sport, any talk of pooled revenue ends in only one point. Centralised contracts and salary caps.

And it's pretty obvious now that the integrity of international cricket and the value of the TV rights is threatened by poor countries fielding weakened teams while the best players are elsewhere trying to earn more money.

 

[aniket1911]

Absolutely. It couldn't have happened if the ICC had not let the BCCI renounce the Woolf report that the ICC had commisioned!

Under the Woolf Report, the ICC would have had the same standards as other modern sporting governing bodies.

Countries could provide directors, but they had to act independently, and when they had a conflict of interest relating to their national origin they were excluded from the discussion and decision.

N Srinivasan and Giles Clarke were having none of that. They gave the Small Seven boards an ultimatum - sign up for turning the ICC into a Private Club for the Big Three, where we take most of the money and control every committee, or Naughty India will make you go bankrupt. Not so much Good Cop / Bad Cop as Very Bad Cops!

All of the Small Seven knew that the BCCI share of the money stunk and was completely arbitrary, picked out of the air by Srinivasan.

But they felt they had no choice. That doesn't mean that they agreed with the sums.

So, just a theory that BCCI arm twisted other boards to agree?

For all it matters, major objection to woolf report was on Authoritative front. Money distribution wasn't the major point of contention. Even if you talk the financial side of the report, some of the recommendations -

The distribution model should be revised so that amounts distributed to Members are on a needs basis as opposed to an automatic entitlement.

Another socialist idea based report without any actually fact study. Given the penurious nature of small boards and parsimonious of BCCi, it was always bound to be turned down.

So all in all, nothing concrete just theories.

 

[Junaids]

So, just a theory that BCCI arm twisted other boards to agree?

For all it matters, major objection to woolf report was on Authoritative front. Money distribution wasn't the major point of contention. Even if you talk the financial side of the report, some of the recommendations -


Another socialist idea based report without any actually fact study. Given the penurious nature of small boards and parsimonious of BCCi, it was always bound to be turned down.

So all in all, nothing concrete just theories.

Socialist? Lord Woolf met Lady Woolf at the National Liberal Club and he sits in the House of Lords as a crossbench peer. He's about as socialist as Donald Trump.

The argument for ICC handouts was that you would have to justify what the money was for - you wouldn't just get a grant without proving what the money was needed for and then showing proof of how it was spent.

But India wanted - and got - a blank cheque instead.

 

[aniket1911]

Socialist? Lord Woolf met Lady Woolf at the National Liberal Club and he sits in the House of Lords as a crossbench peer. He's about as socialist as Donald Trump.

The argument for ICC handouts was that you would have to justify what the money was for - you wouldn't just get a grant without proving what the money was needed for and then showing proof of how it was spent.

But India wanted - and got - a blank cheque instead.

The subscription model of funding the ICC should be abolished and the ICC should become self-funding and financially independent.

The distribution model should be revised so that amounts distributed to Members are on a needs basis as opposed to an automatic entitlement.

The ICC should undertake a full financial review of global cricket that incorporates the commercial implications of ICC events and the FTP.

The ICC should make all reasonable efforts to confirm the flow of funds relating to its events and major commercial arrangements with the aim of ensuring the funds only go to intended legitimate recipients.

The ICC should put mechanisms in place to obtain and monitor full financial information from all Members on a regular basis.

Complying with these obligations should be a condition of receipt of any distributions by the ICC.

source: cricinfo

Don't tell me, second point isn't on socialist spectrum.

Pray show me the findings that BCCI doesn't generate revenue as much as ICC proclaimed.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Tusker]

Channel 9 is the broadcaster. They don't care what foreign teams' players are paid. They just want to get the rights at a good price.

Cricket Australia has reason to care. Their international product needs to be competitive, which means that they need the opposition to be at full strength.

Last year we had a half-strength touring West Indies team which was smashed to pieces, while better West Indies players were in Australia at the same time, playing BBL. Matches lasted 3 days, and gate receipts were poor.

It has become clear to Cricket Australia that their product is devalued by poorer boards sending weakened teams because their best players are earning T20 money elsewhere.

So for Cricket Australia, partial or even full pooling of TV revenue is starting to look worthwhile.

And because Cricket Australia management is steeped in the models of governance and funding of all Australian professional sport, any talk of pooled revenue ends in only one point. Centralised contracts and salary caps.

And it's pretty obvious now that the integrity of international cricket and the value of the TV rights is threatened by poor countries fielding weakened teams while the best players are elsewhere trying to earn more money.

Alienating India - which is a pretty good team no matter how hard you try to tell us otherwise lol -- will only make matters worse. And you can be certain that they will lure away top players from All countries except Pak. So again not sure what is the logical basis for your views.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

The bottom line is this: No matter how you slice the mango, BCCI cannot bring in 80% of the revenue by themselves.

Without, India CT will lose a lot of revenue but it won't be 0. But without the other 9 teams, BCCI would make 0 or very nearly 0.

If the Indian fans, market, etc genereate the revenue just to watch team India play then India would make the same money hosting Zimbabwe for 5 Tests as they would hosting England for 5 Tests.

So no, Indian fans don't pay just to watch India play...they pay to watch India play reputable teams. And that is why the reputable team has value and India is wrong to ask for 33% of the ICC revenues.

They should get 132 million like everyone else, and the ICC are actually being generous in their offer of 290 or 400 million.

 

[Junaids]

source: cricinfo

Don't tell me, second point isn't on socialist spectrum.

Pray show me the findings that BCCI doesn't generate revenue as much as ICC proclaimed.

Thanks in advance.

There's nothing remotely socialist about your second excerpt.

It's just normal governance: don't just give welfare handouts, fund proper proposals and check the receipts to make sure the money is spent on what was applied for.

 

[aniket1911]

There's nothing remotely socialist about your second excerpt.

It's just normal governance: don't just give welfare handouts, fund proper proposals and check the receipts to make sure the money is spent on what was applied for.

Yeah sure, Money to be distributed on need basis rather than contribution basis, is not a socialist idea.

 

[Junaids]

Yeah sure, Money to be distributed on need basis rather than contribution basis, is not a socialist idea.

But on a contribution basis the BCCI and everyone else gets zero. Nothing. Diddly-squat.

The contributions are from private broadcasters to the ICC to show ICC tournaments.

The amazing scam which the BCCI has almost pulled off is to fool people into thinking that they contribute. They don't.

Indian TV generates money. The BCCI just wastes it in industrial quantities. And it's not their money anyway - it's the ICC's.

When the English FA can go to FIFA's bank and claim a handout because of how much money the BBC and ITV pay FIFA for TV rights, then the BCCI - and you - will have an argument.

Until that day it's just a con job by a desperate BCCI which can't control its expenditure and is insolvent without welfare payments in the form of ICC handouts.

 

[shah_1]

Yeah sure, Money to be distributed on need basis rather than contribution basis, is not a socialist idea.

Indian watch cricket because India play against world class teams and world class players. If Sachin had scored 98 against some Indian like trundlers, no one would have remembered. It is remembered because it was played against Pakistan and smashed Shoaib, Wasim and Waqar Younis.

The players and countries the India play against are brand as well, the amount that was being offered(100 million incremental) was very fair.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

The other 9 have no issue with India playing.

India can play their own IPL and keep all the revenue. If you need to use foreign players you have to acknowledge their nation's value for producing them and compenate them accordingly.

India is not God's Chosen Nation.

Actually no, the foreign players are human beings and individuals, rather than the property of the nation they happen to come from.

If they wish to participate it's their choice and they are not the possession of the CA or the ECB or any other board.

 

[aniket1911]

But on a contribution basis the BCCI and everyone else gets zero. Nothing. Diddly-squat.

The contributions are from private broadcasters to the ICC to show ICC tournaments.

The amazing scam which the BCCI has almost pulled off is to fool people into thinking that they contribute. They don't.

Indian TV generates money. The BCCI just wastes it in industrial quantities. And it's not their money anyway - it's the ICC's.

When the English FA can go to FIFA's bank and claim a handout because of how much money the BBC and ITV pay FIFA for TV rights, then the BCCI - and you - will have an argument.

Until that day it's just a con job by a desperate BCCI which can't control its expenditure and is insolvent without welfare payments in the form of ICC handouts.

And Indian TV generates money because People want to see Indian team play which is owned by BCCI.

Moreover, If you call BCCI's share a handout than better let's just drop the argument. As it leads us to nowhere.

 

[aniket1911]

Indian watch cricket because India play against world class teams and world class players. If Sachin had scored 98 against some Indian like trundlers, no one would have remembered. It is remembered because it was played against Pakistan and smashed Shoaib, Wasim and Waqar Younis.

The players and countries the India play against are brand as well, the amount that was being offered(100 million incremental) was very fair.

Again, I am not refuting it. Ofcourse, other teams plays their part. My post above should be looked in the context of Junaids claim that woolf report studied the financial contribution of each country.

 

[Junaids]

Again, I am not refuting it. Ofcourse, other teams plays their part. My post above should be looked in the context of Junaids claim that woolf report studied the financial contribution of each country.

Now hold on a minute.

The current discussions are not just for the future. They are for 2015-2023.

And the distribution up to 2015 was that everybody - including the BCCI - received 7.5%.

If the BCCI wants a single rupee more than 7.5%, they need to justify in detail why their finances are so bad that they need a larger subsidy than anyone else.

 

[Ph_11]

Now hold on a minute.

The current discussions are not just for the future. They are for 2015-2023.

And the distribution up to 2015 was that everybody - including the BCCI - received 7.5%.

If the BCCI wants a single rupee more than 7.5%, they need to justify in detail why their finances are so bad that they need a larger subsidy than anyone else.

Show me one country that contributes so dispropotionately to the revenue stream as India does? None.

Even at $500 mn we are being cheated.

Just remember when Mike Tyson was boxing. No one came to see the opponent. They were paying for Iron Mike.

Cricket does not generate revenue. India does.

England vs Pakistan. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Pakistan vs Sl. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

SL vs BD. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Zim vs Australia. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Afgahnistan vs Hong Kong. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Aus vs S A. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

SA vs Pakistan. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Tom vs Dick. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Dick vs Harry. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Get the picture.

Now

India vs Tom. Cricket played. Revenue generated.

India vs Dick. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

India vs Harry. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

In each and every scenario above cricket is being played but for revenue to be generated India is the common denominator.

The fifth largest economy (greater than England) is geerating the revenue.

Need to be fair in distribution models. That is all we are asking.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Show me one country that contributes so dispropotionately to the revenue stream as India does? None.

Even at $500 mn we are being cheated.

Just remember when Mike Tyson was boxing. No one came to see the opponent. They were paying for Iron Mike.

Cricket does not generate revenue. India does.

England vs Pakistan. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Pakistan vs Sl. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

SL vs BD. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Zim vs Australia. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Afgahnistan vs Hong Kong. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Aus vs S A. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

SA vs Pakistan. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Tom vs Dick. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Dick vs Harry. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

Get the picture.

Now

India vs Tom. Cricket played. Revenue generated.

India vs Dick. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

India vs Harry. Cricket played. No revenue generated.

In each and every scenario above cricket is being played but for revenue to be generated India is the common denominator.

The fifth largest economy (greater than England) is geerating the revenue.

Need to be fair in distribution models. That is all we are asking.

Pakistan and SA toured Australia this season. CA will make a loss of 68mn AUD.

 

[Ph_11]

Pakistan and SA toured Australia this season. CA will make a loss of 68mn AUD.

I have to disagrre.

How can that be?

I thought cricket made money?

Are you sure?

 

[Napa]

This statement keeps getting thrown around, but what is based on?

You take India out of World Cup, and maybe the ICC revenue falls to 50%. But conversely, if you take the other 9 countries out of the WC, the ICC's revenue would fall to 0. Thus the other 9 countries could just as easily lay a claim to "generating 100% of the income".

We now have at least one senior official saying on record that "the Indian market contributed 70% of the global cricket revenue". Take that to mean what you may.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/crick...h-chaudhary/story-CIngZ2YQngNtvyWR4nsWEJ.html

 

[Balthazar]

Pakistan and SA toured Australia this season. CA will make a loss of 68mn AUD.

I always wanted to ask this. Do we incur loss in revenues if some minnow nation, say Bangla, tours us?

 

[BDfanforever]

Does advertisement even work? I mean when was the last time you went shopping based on a ad you saw on tv

 

[BDfanforever]

Pakistan and SA toured Australia this season. CA will make a loss of 68mn AUD.

Cricket is a business, no country will allow a tour that will cause $68mil loss

 

[big_gamer007]

Does advertisement even work? I mean when was the last time you went shopping based on a ad you saw on tv��

Are you joking? Companies spend millions of rupees on ads to capture the market.. Why you think Vivo, oppo are spending so much? Coz they want general consumers to realise they have a product in market.. without ads they wouldn't know about the product unless their specs are worth more than their cost like in case of some Chinese phones..

 

[AlizeeFan]

Does advertisement even work? I mean when was the last time you went shopping based on a ad you saw on tv��

People buy toothpastes only on the basis of advertisements in India.

 

[Napa]

People buy toothpastes only on the basis of advertisements in India.

There is somewhere the money for Stokes $2 million contract and 7 Indian players $1+ million contracts comes from. It must be the advertising that firms pay, and they do make "return on investment" calculations for the advertising money the spend.

Having watched some TV in India recently, I can't remember a single toothpaste advert, but do remember more than twenty other things being advertised (smartphones, cars, foods etc.).

 

[BDfanforever]

Are you joking? Companies spend millions of rupees on ads to capture the market.. Why you think Vivo, oppo are spending so much? Coz they want general consumers to realise they have a product in market.. without ads they wouldn't know about the product unless their specs are worth more than their cost like in case of some Chinese phones..

If I run an ad for an Audi, how many in India can afford it? I think 90% of the ads are useless. If people wants to buy toothpaste they can just go to a store and buy one.

Im not saying all advertisement are useless, but most are.

 

[Napa]

If I run an ad for an Audi, how many in India can afford it? I think 90% of the ads are useless. If people wants to buy toothpaste they can just go to a store and buy one.

Im not saying all advertisement are useless, but most are.

Every product needs advertising and every product has appropriate channels.

TV is not the appropriate channel for Audi given the low percentage of people who buy Audis, however Suzukis and Hyundais are massively advertised on Indian TV.

Your saying most advertising is useless is similar to saying "most firms don't do return on investment calculations". I doubt you know business better than the firms who actually spend the money.

 

[RamLakhan]

The other 9 have no issue with India playing.

India can play their own IPL and keep all the revenue. If you need to use foreign players you have to acknowledge their nation's value for producing them and compenate them accordingly.

India is not God's Chosen Nation.

The players (elite ones) of other 9 will ditch and resign the boards in that case and participate in IPL (2 months) and have holiday/practice/side-business/side-career/other-leagues for 10 months (No more stupid long tours and stupid long test matches! Some of the West Indies cricketers have realized this already and no wonder they are successful in IPL without international match practice! IPL itself makes a player grow!) Further we may see 2 or 3 IPL tournaments in the year (If BCCI is threatened by ICC like this) pulling all kind of cricket talents on the globe towards it! Aspiring cricketers from other countries will utilize their board resources only until playing some international matches and after that they will ditch their board and settle in IPL (They may lose the board's membership permanently that is the only issue and they don't care for it, because they know Cricket will survive and die in India hereafter!) The only remote threat is that these players may lose citizenship of their respective countries(is it so? really? This is not even possible in Cricket-religious India where fixers like Azhar, Jadeja are still surviving!), but I don't think their boards (Cricket boards of some of these countries are not even known to their government officials!) have that much control over them! Most of these countries are not even 20% as patriotic as India and other sub-continent teams! So only "money" rules them, and even Indians & other Asians have realized that! If not for political reasons I am sure even Pakistani Cricketers are eager to play in IPL, actually India have denied them (Pakistanis are the extremes when it comes to religious/patriotic cricket, but at the same time they are the extremes in other direction as well - quick money making and IPL can give that without much fuss & desperation!) So don't be surprised when gradually individual boards realize this and compromise with BCCI in future for better benefits! Cricket will be centered in India.

India is the America of Cricket, that's the fact! Indians have came out of their patriotic-cricket following (no more stone throwing, stadium burning, etc). Indians have started to enjoy cricket as entertainment & glamour and have accepted IPL wholeheartedly! Further Indian Cricket team has evolved from its dark ages, and the country will now on produce talented (& fit) cricketers, the administration will be professional and there will be decent performance in international matches unlike the dark age, so fans will be happy-happy always and BCCI will also be happy with its money! But there's no surprise that only Pakistan looking at all these in "past" sense (tense) because they are in no man's land in Modern Cricketing Business Model so hoping for ICC to intervene to bring about so-called fair distribution policy (but its impossible!)

 

[big_gamer007]

If I run an ad for an Audi, how many in India can afford it? I think 90% of the ads are useless. If people wants to buy toothpaste they can just go to a store and buy one.

Im not saying all advertisement are useless, but most are.

Ok you don't understand basic concept of marketing, Why do you think Pepsi and Coca Cola have captured the aerated drinks market?

If you don't advertise people would not know of your company and products. If a person goes to buy a toothpaste he will buy Colgate or Pepsodent not some random toothpaste no one has ever heard of.. advertisements make the consumer aware of the product..

Audi is already a brand value So is BMW/rolls Royce/Apple they DO NOT need advertisement because they already are a brand and target the elite class not the commoners.. If you think advertisements are useless I can't help you, you need a basic level education in marketing to understand their value..

 

[BDfanforever]

Every product needs advertising and every product has appropriate channels.

TV is not the appropriate channel for Audi given the low percentage of people who buy Audis, however Suzukis and Hyundais are massively advertised on Indian TV.

Your saying most advertising is useless is similar to saying "most firms don't do return on investment calculations". I doubt you know business better than the firms who actually spend the money.

Why is YouTube, Twitch, etc spams you more with ads these days? Bc it doesnt work as much as people think it does. Again, i asked a simple question did u ever buy or did anything based of a tv ad? I know i never did. The only useful ad i find is probably movies.

 

[BDfanforever]

Ok you don't understand basic concept of marketing, Why do you think Pepsi and Coca Cola have captured the aerated drinks market?

If you don't advertise people would not know of your company and products. If a person goes to buy a toothpaste he will buy Colgate or Pepsodent not some random toothpaste no one has ever heard of.. advertisements make the consumer aware of the product..

Audi is already a brand value So is BMW/rolls Royce/Apple they DO NOT need advertisement because they already are a brand and target the elite class not the commoners.. If you think advertisements are useless I can't help you, you need a basic level education in marketing to understand their value..

Again simple question did u ever buy anything after you saw a tv ad? These if you want to buy something you can just go to a store and get it. I am not saying marketing doesnt exist, it does but even YouTube realizes that they dont really work as efficiently as they would like so they increased the ad run time to collect more revenues.

 

[big_gamer007]

Again simple question did u ever buy anything after you saw a tv ad? These if you want to buy something you can just go to a store and get it. I am not saying marketing doesnt exist, it does but even YouTube realizes that they dont really work as efficiently as they would like so they increased the ad run time to collect more revenues.

Mate you and me buy Pepsi/Coca cola rather than RC cola..

You and me buy pepsodent/Colgate rather than glisters.

You and me buy syska LEDs rather than some local companies LED's..

It's all because of the advertisements that we do it because the other smaller companies can't afford to spend millions in advertisements their products can be better than the ones we buy but we still won't buy coz we would not know about them..

I guess the point you are trying to make is You won't buy a phone just because of a stupid advertisement Alia Bhatt is doing, however when you buy a phone you will research about the specs and price and then buy.. In that research you will include the phone Alia Bhatt advertises but not include any phone which you haven't even heard off..

 

[cricketjoshila]

I always wanted to ask this. Do we incur loss in revenues if some minnow nation, say Bangla, tours us?

No.India gets paid 45cr rupees per match by STAR.No matter who tours.The rest are also same.Long term deals not dictated by opposition.Thats the power of BCCI.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Cricket is a business, no country will allow a tour that will cause $68mil loss������

Tell that to CA.I am not saying this. Cricinfo reported it.

 

[HitWicket]

No.India gets paid 45cr rupees per match by STAR.No matter who tours.The rest are also same.

Source?

 

[Napa]

Again, i asked a simple question did u ever buy or did anything based of a tv ad?

Do you have any "disposable income", that is income left over after paying your necessities? If you do, then you are completely deluded if you believe that you have not made purchases based on advertisements you have seen.

In the modern world, advertising is both powerful and all pervasive. Even the infrastructure for the page you are currently reading this post on is paid for by advertisements on the page.

 

[BDfanforever]

Do you have any "disposable income", that is income left over after paying your necessities? If you do, then you are completely deluded if you believe that you have not made purchases based on advertisements you have seen.

In the modern world, advertising is both powerful and all pervasive. Even the infrastructure for the page you are currently reading this post on is paid for by advertisements on the page.

What do you mean by disposable income?

I am not denying the power of advertising, i am merely saying it is being over exaggerated here. I gave you realistic real world examples as i see countless of tv ad, online ad etc and only very few of them i can actually relate to. I am pretty sure it is true for you too. Over the course of your lifetime you probably seen tons of ads, but very few were relevant to you. Thats all i am saying. I know in the us during super bowl even 30s ad will cost companies millions of dollars.

I was always curious how advertisement worked thats why i gave my two cents here. I am willing to learn about marketing from someone who has a degree in it.

 

[Junaids]

There is somewhere the money for Stokes $2 million contract and 7 Indian players $1+ million contracts comes from. It must be the advertising that firms pay, and they do make "return on investment" calculations for the advertising money the spend.

Having watched some TV in India recently, I can't remember a single toothpaste advert, but do remember more than twenty other things being advertised (smartphones, cars, foods etc.).

Actually, page 149 of the BCCI annual report says that that is completely untrue.

It says that in spite of huge revenue from the IPL, the BCCI spends so much that it could not pay its bills without a vast ICC welfare handout.

Forget Ben Stokes. The BCCI can't even afford to employ a chaiwallah without a handout.

That's what happens when you live beyond your means.

And that's why even the new distribution model involves every country from Bangladesh to Sri Lanka taking a reduction from 7.5% to 7% so that they can subsidise the BCCI's out-of-control spending.

 

[Hornbill]

Actually, page 149 of the BCCI annual report says that that is completely untrue.

It says that in spite of huge revenue from the IPL, the BCCI spends so much that it could not pay its bills without a vast ICC welfare handout.

Forget Ben Stokes. The BCCI can't even afford to employ a chaiwallah without a handout.

That's what happens when you live beyond your means.

And that's why even the new distribution model involves every country from Bangladesh to Sri Lanka taking a reduction from 7.5% to 7% so that they can subsidise the BCCI's out-of-control spending.

Why are you repeating the same thing, Some posters already explained the reason behind allocation of extra funds to state associations during that year.

 

[USofA]

Actually, page 149 of the BCCI annual report says that that is completely untrue.

It says that in spite of huge revenue from the IPL, the BCCI spends so much that it could not pay its bills without a vast ICC welfare handout.

Forget Ben Stokes. The BCCI can't even afford to employ a chaiwallah without a handout.

That's what happens when you live beyond your means.

And that's why even the new distribution model involves every country from Bangladesh to Sri Lanka taking a reduction from 7.5% to 7% so that they can subsidise the BCCI's out-of-control spending.

Why is the ICC giving these "handouts" that too in a disproportionate %. If it is ICC's money and they are just giving it away, then shame on the ICC. They are doing a great dis-service to the game of cricket. Heads should roll in the ICC.

Let's assume that the BCCI is dead broke and have their begging bowl out, they are still able to negotiate and get what they want over the years. Boy do they have some excellent negotiating skills. I want them in my side next time I am making a deal.

Even now when things have changed, they are already on the winning side. The $400 million currently on the table is still a disproportionate "handout". The ICC continues not to be prudent with $$$.

 

[Napa]

Actually, page 149 of the BCCI annual report says that that is completely untrue.

It says that in spite of huge revenue from the IPL, the BCCI spends so much that it could not pay its bills without a vast ICC welfare handout.

Forget Ben Stokes. The BCCI can't even afford to employ a chaiwallah without a handout.

That's what happens when you live beyond your means.

And that's why even the new distribution model involves every country from Bangladesh to Sri Lanka taking a reduction from 7.5% to 7% so that they can subsidise the BCCI's out-of-control spending.

[MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] did a pretty good assessment of your use of the word "handout". It appears that his post (that you had no reply for) silenced you for a couple of days, but now you are back in full form.

 

[Napa]

No wonder they are so desperate for welfare handouts from the ICC. Their spending is astronomical.

They pay 721 crore per year to the state associations compared with 45 crore to the players.

They have a fixed liability in their pension fund to past and present players of 0.17 crore.

But they have a liability of 1256 crore to the state associations.

From your post it sounds like BCCI is spending its money irresponsibly by giving money to the state associations. That reveals a total lack of thinking.

If BCCI is going to help young Indian cricketers develop, then the most natural activity for it is to give money to state associations. If facilities are going to be developed to help young cricketers then those facilities will be developed by the state associations.

Contrary to your claim, I regard BCCI's substantial payments to state associations rather than players as a sign of a well run organization.

 

[bleaf27]

So while doing my research on ICC and digging through , I found out something which was news for me -

"ICC is only a legislative body not a governing body unlike FIFA"

 

[Napa]

I agree with your numbers.

But again, I respectfully ask "how does a country with only 40 million taxpayers,

Your understanding of economics is weak. The number of Indian taxpayers is over a billion. Anyone in India who buys anything is paying indirect taxes (octroi, sales, etc.) to the government.

with an economy only 60% of the size of Australia and England combined, generate enough advertising or subscription revenue to pay this?[/B]"

If the size of the economy is $2,400 billion, it is not hard to generate about $1 billion for TV rights for 10 years for the country's most popular viewership sport.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Actually, page 149 of the BCCI annual report says that that is completely untrue.

It says that in spite of huge revenue from the IPL, the BCCI spends so much that it could not pay its bills without a vast ICC welfare handout.

Forget Ben Stokes. The BCCI can't even afford to employ a chaiwallah without a handout.

That's what happens when you live beyond your means.

And that's why even the new distribution model involves every country from Bangladesh to Sri Lanka taking a reduction from 7.5% to 7% so that they can subsidise the BCCI's out-of-control spending.

How much did ICC pay to players for ICC tournaments?

 

[Shutdown Corner]

BCCI's revenue

Even if the BCCI "generates" 70% of cricket's revenue, that isnt due to any effort or work put in by the BCCI or even Indian cricketers. Its purely due to having a population of 1.3 billion.

Its like two factory workers doing the same job, but one demands 4x the wages because he has 4 times as many kids as the workers combined.

 

[Chrish]

I don't get it what makes PCB so backward.. They too are one of the most populous nations on a globe with Cricket as the only sport! They should be part of big 4 but instead all I see them do is crying over bullying from BCCI!

 

[kdoversmg]

Even if the BCCI "generates" 70% of cricket's revenue, that isnt due to any effort or work put in by the BCCI or even Indian cricketers. Its purely due to having a population of 1.3 billion.

Its like two factory workers doing the same job, but one demands 4x the wages because he has 4 times as many kids as the workers combined.

and your point is? And to support such a large fanbase, BCCI needs to control its revenue stream and let everyone live within their means, Not unlike BCCI had to with govt and private funding in the 70's, 80 and big part of 90's.

BCCI needs to buy fields and set up tournaments and increase game participation within india. If there is more, support other sports in India. Screw Ire and nederland.

 

[Robbie]

In ur example.. kids are not at all related to the factory revenue and the factory is not running for the kids..

In case of ICC.. ICC is earning its revenue due to India's population.. or to better explain in language of ur example.. Factory's revenue is coming from worker's children.. the why the hell not that worker should be paid more?

 

[Itachi]

Even if the BCCI "generates" 70% of cricket's revenue, that isnt due to any effort or work put in by the BCCI or even Indian cricketers. Its purely due to having a population of 1.3 billion.

Its like two factory workers doing the same job, but one demands 4x the wages because he has 4 times as many kids as the workers combined.

Wrong example.

In your equation, one big factor is missing. Viewership and revenues earned from there.

Hence to put it in your equation, two workers does the same job but one brings her kids to increase the production. Since the kids are also contributing (her and the kids both combines 70% of production), hence more wages needs to be paid to her.

 

[JaDed]

Even if the BCCI "generates" 70% of cricket's revenue, that isnt due to any effort or work put in by the BCCI or even Indian cricketers. Its purely due to having a population of 1.3 billion.

Its like two factory workers doing the same job, but one demands 4x the wages because he has 4 times as many kids as the workers combined.

Never chose an analogy in frustration,it would fall flat ,the kids are contributing to the factory in your example so now based on your example they deserve their pay.

 

[GrandMaster]

Even if the BCCI "generates" 70% of cricket's revenue, that isnt due to any effort or work put in by the BCCI or even Indian cricketers. Its purely due to having a population of 1.3 billion.

Its like two factory workers doing the same job, but one demands 4x the wages because he has 4 times as many kids as the workers combined.

As per your logic, every board should get the same revenue, be it India, Australia, Afg or Ireland?

 

[jagatk]

Even if the BCCI "generates" 70% of cricket's revenue, that isnt due to any effort or work put in by the BCCI or even Indian cricketers. Its purely due to having a population of 1.3 billion.

Its like two factory workers doing the same job, but one demands 4x the wages because he has 4 times as many kids as the workers combined.

That has to be the downright dumbest explanation anyone here has given for not giving bcci additional money, so the population which is why icc gets money from broadcasters are the children in this case. Just read the thing again mate, and tell me it makes sense even to you, because it doesn't to me.

 

[jagatk]

I don't get it what makes PCB so backward.. They too are one of the most populous nations on a globe with Cricket as the only sport! They should be part of big 4 but instead all I see them do is crying over bullying from BCCI!

But they don't bring anywhere near the viewership india brings and frankly pakistan is not as economically strong, india has always been big in terms of population but the real money started pouring in from broadcasters and sponsors only when indian economy took off.

 

[Slog]

This is a very poor example lol

 

[Snow]

I am not sure if OP is just a troll, but as explained by others, if kids are the one working on factory, they deserve the pay.