-
Contact the PP Team
Why did the ECB and CA decide to do a U-Turn on the Big 3 formula?
- Thread starter SM1989
- Start date
pakistanigoneaussie
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2010
- Runs
- 21,505
- Post of the Week
- 2
combination of bad reaction back home, knowing it was untenable and probably fearing India's power getting more unchecked
Nil Dhumrojal
First Class Star
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2016
- Runs
- 4,038
ACB or CA??? isn't ACB is afghanistan cricket board???
pakistanigoneaussie
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2010
- Runs
- 21,505
- Post of the Week
- 2
used to be called ACB before a branding change
I think lot of it had to with domestic confusion with the ABC, our equivalent of the BBC
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] nailed this one.
Until Shashank Manohar became the head of the ICC, the BCCI's catastrophic overspending was well-hidden and the ECB and Cricket Australia had to believe the BCCI's claims of financial superpower status.
And to make things worse, the ECB chief Giles Clarke was already notorious for getting into bed with any rogue offering cash - he already had with Allen Stanford, who is now serving a 110 year prison sentence in a federal prison in the USA.
So Giles Clarke is not a man who is renowned for doing due diligence on foreign men bearing suspicious gifts. He's lying down in bed before the door closes.
So the answer it was greed then, and they presumably changed their minds when Manohar pointed out that the BCCI's spending is so immense that it can only survive with ICC handouts.
Until Shashank Manohar became the head of the ICC, the BCCI's catastrophic overspending was well-hidden and the ECB and Cricket Australia had to believe the BCCI's claims of financial superpower status.
And to make things worse, the ECB chief Giles Clarke was already notorious for getting into bed with any rogue offering cash - he already had with Allen Stanford, who is now serving a 110 year prison sentence in a federal prison in the USA.
So Giles Clarke is not a man who is renowned for doing due diligence on foreign men bearing suspicious gifts. He's lying down in bed before the door closes.
So the answer it was greed then, and they presumably changed their minds when Manohar pointed out that the BCCI's spending is so immense that it can only survive with ICC handouts.
last_knight
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Runs
- 6,461
I have a bad feeling they are doing this to pave way for another U-Turn. Apparently there was no reason why would they go against Big-3. The reason will be clear when in near future they go against the new model.
(Remember the debates comparimg volume of Funds for CT Eng vs WC T20i Ind )
Answer to 2nd part is the lure of Extra Bucks in new model for all other boards. Why would they vote against new Model when All Boards are promised to get more than what they were getting in Big-3 Model.
(Remember the debates comparimg volume of Funds for CT Eng vs WC T20i Ind )
Answer to 2nd part is the lure of Extra Bucks in new model for all other boards. Why would they vote against new Model when All Boards are promised to get more than what they were getting in Big-3 Model.
Flat_Track_Bully
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Runs
- 6,523
Because cricket is dieing and BCCI corrupt employees are eating up all the money. I reckon 40% of money received by BCCI is wasted on corruption.
dildildalwalla
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2017
- Runs
- 685
- Post of the Week
- 1
Spot on!
What is your stance on the 400 mill payout to the BCCI, or as I call it, the bribe? I personally think that number is too large and should never have been agreed upon.
Nil Dhumrojal
First Class Star
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2016
- Runs
- 4,038
You can call it bribe but idc trying to make everyone happy at most and it is required for better world cricket environment
I am not sure about over spending, but for sure, it's wasn't an one sided game as it looked few months back. I do believe that Manohar, as a professional, has analyzed both sides of the equation & taken other members to comfort - he must have additional info that other's didn't have.
From a different angle, I was looking at SM's profile - he comes from an elite family of Nagpur, who had been beneficiary of Sharad Power's (former INC leader) ruling in Maharastra. I am not sure, but might be that he (& his family) are backed by Congress party (or they are traditional INC follower) - he is exposing BCCI under political leadership.
I think it's a bad idea.
If the Small Seven could be trusted to stay together then it wouldn't be necessary.
But I think it's a necessary evil, because the ECB and CA know that the BCCI now has its chequebook out and is trying to pick off each of the Small Seven countries one by one. "Hello South Africa. We know we almost bankrupted you two years ago, but we've changed, and we'd like you to host us for a 5 Test series next year and for 4 ODIs every year until 2023. You will get to keep all the TV income from selling the rights to Indian broadcasters. ".
aloo paratha
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Runs
- 8,792
Following the money, a no brainer.
dildildalwalla
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2017
- Runs
- 685
- Post of the Week
- 1
Sadly, this is very true. If the PCB and CSA, the two most important boards outside of ECB and CA could form an alliance, bring those two in and create a financial pact, then the problem of the BCCI could be eliminated.
bleaf27
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2017
- Runs
- 1,041
CA did not lose much money so for them it had no financial bearing. ECB wasn't set to lose much. BCCI with the lion's share and with IPL on the rise - could have easily run away with the game and instead of the Big 3 , it would have been left to just big 1 . This was their last effort to maintain some hold - when you cannot lift yourself any higher to compete - you focus onto halt your competitor. How business works
Thomaskutty
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Runs
- 1,616
That is a good question. Given that CA and ECB get the same amount whether they vote for or against big 3 , you'd think they be sensible and ally with BCCI on this issue. What changed ?
aniket1911
Local Club Captain
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2015
- Runs
- 2,399
Bad publicity among cricketing fraternity and over reliance on Indian tour and their ever increasing dominance.
For last four meetings, there have been four different BCCI representative representing their case, which makes other boards wary of any decision taken by BCCi representative as he might not be the one with absolute authority. SC has weakened BCCI more on Authoritative front than the functional one, it seems. Nobody takes BCCI seriously currently as their is no clear head of the body.
Last edited:
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,983
- Post of the Week
- 1
Shashank Manohar saw that Supreme court rules mean he will have to leave BCCI and his pet Vidarbha Association.So he moved to ICC and wants to now be there for long like Sepp Blatter.How to do that?Become a hero and get the voters on your side.He is a former BCCI President so he knew how BCCI worked on these boards to get the votes,show them the money. The ECB and CA were never happy that BCCI replaced them as the most powerful board.So he gets along with them,takes away BCCI's share of money by 50% and gives to the other boards to get their support.CA and ECB become his allies.
Manohar also knew that BCCI is in a flux now due to Supreme Court and hence cannot mount a very effective opposition.This fact was underlined by the member of another country's boards who said that BCCI has had 5 different people represent it at ICC in last 5 meetings.How can they negotiate with BCCI and get a deal so its better to go with ICC at this moment.
Manohar also knew that BCCI is in a flux now due to Supreme Court and hence cannot mount a very effective opposition.This fact was underlined by the member of another country's boards who said that BCCI has had 5 different people represent it at ICC in last 5 meetings.How can they negotiate with BCCI and get a deal so its better to go with ICC at this moment.
Resigning from the ICC seems to be a strange way for Manohar to be "there for long".
ads101
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Runs
- 15,467
- Post of the Week
- 4
Cos it meant India got to powerful. The extra ICC income wasn't worth it.
I'm sure those two boards, ECB and CA were the root of the big three coming down. Not the less powerful boards coming together. It's no surprise that they aren't whinging that they're getting a lower percentage share.
I'm sure those two boards, ECB and CA were the root of the big three coming down. Not the less powerful boards coming together. It's no surprise that they aren't whinging that they're getting a lower percentage share.
Unlike the BCCI and its senior executives, I don't think that the ECB and Cricket Australia particularly crave "power" or even money. I think that Giles Clarke was the last one who did.
I think they are happy to run profitable and well-run organisations which are viewed as successes like the EPL in England and the NRL and AFL in Australia.
The NRL and AFL don't compete for power with anyone. If anything, they compete with one another. But pretty much everyone in Australia salutes them as two well-run professional sports.
The ECB under Giles Clarke got in to bed with the BCCI and Cricket Australia joined them mainly out of a fear of being left out.
And to be frank, I suspect that both boards found it to be a near-death experience.
They found the BCCI to be a terrible partner: extorting them and everyone else whenever it was short of cashflow, bullying other boards for no good reason (viz South Africa 2014) and even negotiating in bad faith (setting up a series in New Zealand in that 2014-15 slot without telling New Zealand Cricket that they were supposed to be in South Africa).
It's not much fun being associated with an ally that behaves so deplorably.
So when the BCCI then descended into chaos, sending different representatives to every meeting and flouting court orders, I think that the ECB and Cricket Australia decided that they had backed the wrong horse and needed to get out before it was too late.
Just short-sighted behavior by CA and ECB. Yes, they do fear the rise of India, but wisdom also is accepting things that can't be changed.
The 9-1 victory is Pyrrhic, India will of course be forced to respond. We will have to wait for years or even decades for the end of this story to be written.
cricketjoshila
Test Captain
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Runs
- 47,983
- Post of the Week
- 1
To gather sympathy from the voters that see i am resigning i dont need this i was only fighting for you.
bleaf27
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2017
- Runs
- 1,041
Well it's the short sightedness by PCB , SLB and BD cricket - if they think focusing on stopping BCCI is more imp than focusing on CA and ECB. BCCI will maintain it's superior status regardless. not to the same extent but that's fine.
I was reading an article in which the BCB chief was saying that he considered it a success that he had increased the payout to BCB from $76 million to $132 million. The reality is that there will probably not be enough money to give BCB half of $76 million if India quits ICC.
[MENTION=142864]bleaf27[/MENTION] ? [MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION] ? [MENTION=143230]Ph_11[/MENTION] ?
Why would India quit the ICC?
I wish they would, but they can't afford to. They would lose the welfare handouts and be insolvent.
I understand BCCI did not handle success properly.
They have faults.
I am not educated as you are but I do know onething. In this turbulent worls Pakistan or BD is not your friend.
India is a long term friend. Find a way to mend fences or you will be the loser.
I can't speak a word of any Asian language. Trust me, you're more literate than I am!
I actually agree with you.
And maybe I get so angry towards the BCCI because I expected better of it. I think of India as a civilized nation, and after how they were treated all those years in cricket by England I thought they would use their power responsibly and advance the game.
But they have just spent money like a drunken sailor and then extorted the rest of the cricket world for handouts to cover their extravagance.
I actually think that Manohar is a really decent man. I said that before he even went to the ICC: he was already behaving with humility and dignity and decency when he was in charge of the BCCI.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe most of this $110 mn will either be spent in Eng/Aus or be paid to their citizens.
On the basis of what?
Till recently ICC used to be based in Europe. Do you have a break up of ICC's staff and expenses?
bleaf27
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2017
- Runs
- 1,041
Again most of you say is an opinion so let's atleast get that out of way , I may or may not agree with it.
Until the 2000's , when the BCCI started to make some noise , CA and ECB were running the show. Now quite plausibly you are older than me so most of my knowledge would be literary or anecdotal but again I may see things differently.
I see CA and ECB maintaining the white status quo on the top - let alone whatever happened in the backroom - Chappell's underarm and Hair's blatant row with SL did have an element of arrogance and bully-ish nature to it which was quite reflective of the overhand power of the dominant ECB /CA board.
Demonizing BCCI as a power hungry organization isn't fair because this portrayal falsely makes ECB and CA lack of care for anyone else seem some sort of an altruistic behavior on that part.
Now I always point it out that neither ECB or CA got in bed with BCCI by choice - if you go brown , other colors let you down has never been a popular sentiment. ECB and CA were forced to share the regime with BCCI because since BCCI got his in order and started to promote the game at a much better level internally and having the population numbers - they became too big to be ignored and CA and ECB had to bring them on board akin a step brother.
Now with BCCI clout was increasing to an extent that in couple years if things did not change - ECB and CA would be pretty much not be able to keep up with BCCI's growth . Numbers and figures do not support ECB and CA - those countries have other sports to follow and cricket isn't the main draw. Now with BCCI internal matter dwindling and SC stepping in, this was the chance to stem the growth of BCCI before they get out of reach.
ECB and CA never backed BCCI - BCCI became too strong for them to ignore - no red carpet welcome was given to India and not like other board's invitation card got lost in the mail. ECB and CA had no choice but to share the pie. BCCI did make decisions which was in their best interest and not always in favor of the sport - but a buisness entity would have to do that at times.
bleaf27
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2017
- Runs
- 1,041
Handouts is what PCB and WICB gets - incompetent boards which provide sub standard cricket still getting 132 mil is that. BCCI deservedly gets offered 3x times more. You're star salesman doesn't get handouts mate, the slackers of the company do.
I'm in mobile right now but can have a look later. The ICC moved over a decade ago now.
Do you really think spouting the same BS that you have been doing in each and every thread will make it true, it isn't handout if you are the one earning it and you have not shown any evidence to the contrary not to mention your whole when bcci gets it is handout when others get it is not argument.
What extravagance is this as the only so extravagance was state association one time payments which were made because BCCI made a windfall through CL T20 tournament closure. Also i and [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] have already shown you BCCI does not need ICC money to make profits, you have shown no proof to the contrary, either start stating actual facts or stop posting BS.
Similar threads
