Random Cricket Thread (International Cricket)

[Dr Cricket]

Very good article from bal from the past.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 82858.html

In the wake of the outrage against the Big Three takeover of the ICC in 2014, a sentence, or variations of it, came to be commonly used by the administrators of the ECB and Cricket Australia. Broadly, it went: "Better to have the BCCI in the tent, than having it pelt stones from outside." Apparently the BCCI was ready to walk out of the ICC if the revenue distribution model wasn't recast in its favour.

Three years later, it looks like the clock has been rewound: the BCCI has been left out of the tent, and prominent among those pushing the needle back are the ECB and CA,

It is incredible that Giles Clarke, a leading light of the Big Three proposal as the ECB president at the time, and a vocal defender of it in subsequent months, should also be part of the working group tasked with its unmaking.

That aside, this bit of manoeuvring contains multiple thorns. For a start, it takes world cricket politics squarely back to the pre-2014 era, with the BCCI outside the tent, growling and waiting for its turn to strike. It is bad in principle to have a disgruntled member in a small society, but if that member turns out be the one holding the purse strings, you're asking for trouble.

The other view, which finds wide resonance in India, is that a 20% share for the BCCI is hardly unreasonable, given that it contributes nearly four times more to the global cricket economy than any other country, and it has to support an infrastructure many times the size of any other, given the geographical vastness and the population of the country.

here was indeed an opportunity for engagement. Under Manohar's brief presidency, the BCCI itself had agreed to a reduction of its share, with only one dissenting voice. But as ICC chairman, Manohar chose to exclude the BCCI from the committee formed to revise the financial model, while co-opting members of the ECB and the CA. Is any significant global trade negotiation conceivable without the US at the table?

And do the rest now expect the BCCI, or even the court-appointed committee of administrators, to simply accept a figure that has been arrived at in good faith? Of course, international cricket survives on inter-dependency, and the IPL could never have reached the heights it has without the participation of global stars, but just as Indian cricket cannot flourish in isolation, cricket's global revenues will simply collapse without India's participation.

can't say the members were not warned about this.
They can't start moaning afterwards when BCCI decides it wants to dictate the International calendar when it suits them and when the IPL starts becoming more like the American sports.
Especially now when the new TV deal for the IPL will be signed and the fate of Pune and Rajkot have to be decided.

[m@tt]

not sure it is redressing the balance, if it really was doing that half of the fiances will be kept with ICC and the other half with the full members in a equal share.
what they doing now is an half hearted way of keeping most of the money in the hands of the full members and still having money shared by how powerful the boards are.
TBH you can also argue this was by intimidation as well considering BCCI were kept out of the loop with this deal.

if you comparing the incomes now with the old system pre big 3, all the boards including BCCI are getting a huge increase, Essentially ICC full members have given up on growing the game considering the Associates are barely getting a million a year and most of the associate money is going to Afg and Ireland.
suspect countries like Namibia probably only getting 100K a year on funding, A massive Cut for Associate funding from the old deal.

if they are doing this half hearted way it is quite obvious BCCI won't like the way the figures are carved if they feel more money should be coming their way especially after the way the meeting went last week.

if they were really redressing the big 3, they would start by introducing 50-50 cut with ICC and then the 50% full member pot being shared equally.
but of course that would never happen since no board would vote for that.
the only way the full members were getting more money was to gang up on BCCI while they were vulnerable and that is what they did.

just because most of the members are getting similar shares doesn't mean it was a good deal especially when that deal means one of the main sources of income and the most crucial board getting angry and could pretty much do anything to destroy the international game, especially when you consider the money is now in Domestic T20 leagues.
nothing really stopping BCCI to go full USA sport league models.
in the end we still have to see if it was wise for the likes of WI, Ban etc getting a decent increase and if in the long run this deal meant the full member were losing money because BCCI decidedly to go alone.

like Sussex said all boards got a lot to lose and little to gain.

I'm not saying the balance has been perfectly addressed. But looking specifically at the full members, it's better.

The BIg 3 was certainly intimidation - the 3 most powerful giving themselves power. I wouldn't say it was intimidation this time - the BCCI aren't the little guy! Despite all stuff going on with the Indian Supreme Court and the changes they are imposing, the BCCI are far from vulnerable, they are the biggest power by far in cricket. And if they had been kept in the loop, all they would have done is say 'no'!

I'm not saying what the associates get is enough. As I made clear in my original post, I want the ICC to grow the game and therefore how they share the cash needs to match this goal. But the argument coming from the BCCI is not "the associates aren't getting enough", it's "India isn't getting enough".

Yes India could decide to go alone. But it's all hot air. Doing so would be massively, massively risky. And I doubt they'd get support from the players.

[Dr Cricket]

TBH ICC made it easier for BCCI to go alone.
BCCI can decide they own Fixture list, so they don't really have to play WI, Zim etc or even play away anymore and top of that nothing stopping them extending ipl as well.

[m@tt]

TBH ICC made it easier for BCCI to go alone.
BCCI can decide they own Fixture list, so they don't really have to play WI, Zim etc or even play away anymore and top of that nothing stopping them extending ipl as well.

"Nothing stopping them" is a long way from actually doing it though.

[braveneutral]

I couldn't read it all but surely the middle ground is to reduce some boards who don't necessarily contribute vast sums to maintain associate level and CA, ECB, BCCI shares.

But maybe didn't read enough.

The pot's only so big.

[Dr Cricket]

you do make good points though Matt but I think BCCI didn't really play any role in forming the fix up big 3 deal.

if anything that could be the costly mistake, surely it would have been better for BCCI to be a key member in re balancing the big 3 proposal if they were included in the early stages than maybe now we wouldn't be in a position where a middle ground doesn't exist.
BCCI would able to get a figure they are happy with and the rest of the full member would have a equal share.
pretty hard to change things now since something needs to give either BCCI lose and lose income or the other full members vote for a reduction in money so BCCI get more, doubt anyone would vote for that.

but if BCCI were included earlier in the talks it would have been far easier for all parties to agree on the numbers.

Although saying that if I was BCCI I would take the extra 100M that is probably the figure BCCI deserve, but it will have to be seen if BCCI will want to admit losing to other ICC boards.
BCCI would need to do something to retain its power and be seen as the big dog in the ICC tables otherwise in the future BCCI might be losing more clout in ICC meetings especially if other boards feel like BCCI won't do anything to harm bilateral ties or follow up with the threats.
like it was pointed earlier this was probably the first time ever where BCCI favoured threats and rewards were not working, BCCI promised the weaker boards more money, more tours and more fixtures against india which would have potentially been worth to them more than the deal they voted for.
Two boards in particular that was surprising was Zimbabwe and WI both potentially had a lot to gain for voting with BCCI.

[Dr Cricket]

TBH ICC made it easier for BCCI to go alone.
BCCI can decide they own Fixture list, so they don't really have to play WI, Zim etc or even play away anymore and top of that nothing stopping them extending ipl as well.

"Nothing stopping them" is a long way from actually doing it though.

reckon it is pretty close to happening considering Pune and gujarat need to be decided soon and the next IPL TV deal will be huge.
the forecast for how much bcci will be making on the next ipl is actually frightening, they could potentially make more money through the ipl then they would if india played international cricket in 2-3 yrs and making the money what ICC gets in 7-8 yrs of the global tournaments in 2 yrs.
if BCCI will make more money expanding ipl by a week and adding 2 more teams it will do so if the broadcasters pay more money.

[Dr Cricket]

I couldn't read it all but surely the middle ground is to reduce some boards who don't necessarily contribute vast sums to maintain associate level and CA, ECB, BCCI shares.

But maybe didn't read enough.

The pot's only so big.

if you do it that way it would only leave 3 boards.
cricket is run in a very weird way that only playing against india or England makes money.
no one even really wants to play australia either unless they playing india or england.

CA lost 70M last year because only SA and pak toured.
same with ECB last year and this year.
it is pretty frightening to think ECB/CA only make money when India or the Ashes are happening.

even now BCCI are getting really annoyed at always having to play away against zimbabwe, Sri lanka, WI etc just so they don't get bankrupt.

if Zimbabwe don't spend the money wisely they gone considering I doubt BCCI would be helping them now.

[m@tt]

you do make good points though Matt but I think BCCI didn't really play any role in forming the fix up big 3 deal.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the ECB and CA didn't just decide to give the BCCI a huge slice of the revenues out of the goodness of their hearts. I can't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that the BCCI didn't play a role. The BCCI wanted more money and more power, the ECB and CA feared either a breakaway or a Big One proposal and decided it was better to support the BCCI (to keep them as friends and to increase their own share) rather than oppose them.

[Dr Cricket]

I was really talking about the recent deal.
BCCI didn't really play a part of the new deal till last week when it offered everyone an alternative that was rejected.
Also reports states that they were a few heated moment last week between CA and BCCI officials over the deal so not sure you could say BCCI, CA/ECB are friends anymore.
At the moment not sure BCCI got many friends or Allies in the ICC tables.

[andy]

Find it petty that there's a blocking situation going on here...yeah Bhave appears to be trolling sometimes with his comments, but nowhere near as bad as others who have been on here...debate and conflict are part of being on these forums and i dont mind it....

We can all agree though surely, that the BCCI, clearly dosen't have the intrests of the game and its future in its heart...

[Dr Cricket]

TBH not sure any board got the world game interest.
Giles Clarke did say on tv few years ago that when he votes or pitches stuff in ICC it is always on ecb best interest not on icc

[Dr Cricket]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/conte ... 95760.html
COA to stop BCCI from serving notice to ICC.

Ever since the Indian board was outvoted at the ICC last week on a new financial model as well as constitutional changes, speculation has grown about how the BCCI will react. One option on the table is for the BCCI to revoke the MPA, which governs member participation in ICC events. It is a drastic step and, if it were to be taken, it would not only mean India pulling out of the Champions Trophy, but also that they will not play in or host any ICC tournaments for the remainder of the rights cycle that stretches to 2023. On Tuesday, this option seemed like it might become a reality, until the CoA stepped in.

Rai was clear, however, that the BCCI could not send such a notice. His advice to both Choudhary and Thakur was the notice could only be sent in case all 30 state associations voted "unanimously" at the special general body meeting (SGM), which is scheduled for May 7 and has been called specifically to discuss the ICC's decisions, the MPA and India's participation in next month's Champions Trophy. Rai said any decision specifically on withdrawing from the Champions Trophy should only be taken at the SGM. Rai told Choudhary he would need to show in writing that it was the unanimous decision of all 30 BCCI members to send the notice.

Although it seems like if all 30 states in BCCI vote for it then COA will have to send the notice to ICC about a possible revoking of the MPA which would mean India will not play in any ICC events till 2023 or Host them.

[Making_Splinters]

I very much doubt the BCCI will withdraw from ICC competitions, it would be the height of hubris and give the ICC the opportunity to demonstrate there is a future without Indian cricket.

[Dr Cricket]

well it would be the nuclear option since they would be out of all icc events till 2023.
it sounds like BCCI are desperate to save face after a humiliating loss last week.
they don't really have many options to harm the other boards.

Although saying that if they did pull out not sure it would be an success financially for the ICC, maybe it would still be good as a sporting contest but financially the broadcaster got a clause to cut the deal by a huge margin if india don't take part.
bit similar to how Pakistan loss over 80% of its tv deal in the past when terrorist attacks and politics stopped india playing pakistan.
ICC money is linked to india playing.