Random Cricket Thread (International Cricket)

[Durhamfootman]

on a different note, I see that Sarah Taylor resumed her England career the other day. It's good to see she has overcome her anxiety issues enough to try and make a comeback. She is a very talented cricketer

[andy]

Good to see. She's a class act, particuarly with the gloves, and huge boost to see her back

[m@tt]

Definitely no right answer or middle ground here,
basically a coup by the other full member or no money for the Associates.
I suppose the coup could be seen as being fairer with most of the member getting the same amount but if you feel that you bring most of the money you are not exactly going to like ECB/CA basically conning you out of money that you feel entitled to.

I'm sure it's been said elsewhere, but the previous change was more of a coup. 3 nations taking control by intimidation. What's happening now is an attempt to redress the balance.

The Big 3 stitch-up created a new normal for the BCCI - they're comparing the new figures to those they've been receiving for just a couple of years. How does the new percentage compared to the old system, before the Big 3? That's the better comparison. Is it more? Is it less?

if anyone doesn't believe this is still a coup by CA and ECB plus the other full member.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... -australia
ECB got around 100M more, CA 90M more during the Big 3 deal.
wonder why they allowed to keep that money and the other full members gets a huge increase.

CA now get the same as the other full member nations (excl. Zim) so they reduction couldn't have got any bigger without reducing everyone else. The ECB get $11m more than the rest, so their reduction could have increased by a further 8% - FWIW I would have had no complaints had the ECB got the same $132m as the other nations.

The others get an increase because they need it. There are some huge challenges facing these nations and while throwing money at them won't solve anything by itself (obviously needs to be spent wisely), they need the cash a heck of a lot more than the BCCI, or the ECB for that matter.

Ultimately the ICC is a governing body. Its responsibility is to the global and international game - to manage it and to grow it. If you give a third of your profit to one nation (whoever that nation is, that it's the BCCI/India is irrelevant) then that's a few hundred million that no longer goes to nations which are struggling or need the cash to grow their game.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Not sure the ICC is getting much VFM from Zimbabwe.

[Dr Cricket]

Or if ecb and ca deserve to keep that money while associates get basically nothing.

[rich1uk]

Or if ecb and ca deserve to keep that money while associates get basically nothing.

i've been trying hard to ignore your bollox on this subject but i cannot believe even you can be having a go at the ECB and CA for basically getting the same share as the other full members and ring-fencing funding for the associates when its the BCCI that want to keep all of the money earmarked for the associates to themselves

even by your standards thats insane and just comes across as blatant trolling

[Dr Cricket]

Lets not forget they only getting that figure because they joins hands with BCCI on the big 3 deal and then the two board stab bcci in the back and still get to keep the money and by looking at your comment rich, make it even look like it is a good deal.

[rich1uk]

Lets not forget they only getting that figure because they joins hands with BCCI on the big 3 deal and then the two board stab bcci in the back and still get to keep the money and by looking at your comment rich, make it even look like it is a good deal.

if you were arguing that all the other full members should have their share reduced to cover the funding for the associates and allow the BCCI to get a bigger cut then you might actually have a point but your usual agenda shines through in saying only the ECB and CA should get less money

back on ignore however before i say anything else i regret

[Dr Cricket]

Or if ecb and ca deserve to keep that money while associates get basically nothing.

i've been trying hard to ignore your bollox on this subject but i cannot believe even you can be having a go at the ECB and CA for basically getting the same share as the other full members and ring-fencing funding for the associates when its the BCCI that want to keep all of the money earmarked for the associates to themselves

even by your standards thats insane and just comes across as blatant trolling

just because you leave a small amount of money to the associates it doesn't exacly mean you doing a good deed.
is like a billionaire paying a homeless man, 5 pounds a year in Charity and bragging to everyone how good he is in giving people money and doing charity work.

Anyway it is pointless discussing this with you considering that you are clearly pro ECB and can't even see how this is coup for ECB.

[rich1uk]

Or if ecb and ca deserve to keep that money while associates get basically nothing.

i've been trying hard to ignore your bollox on this subject but i cannot believe even you can be having a go at the ECB and CA for basically getting the same share as the other full members and ring-fencing funding for the associates when its the BCCI that want to keep all of the money earmarked for the associates to themselves

even by your standards thats insane and just comes across as blatant trolling

just because you leave a small amount of money to the associates it doesn't exacly mean you doing a good deed.
is like a billionaire paying a homeless man, 5 pounds a year in Charity and bragging to everyone how good he is in giving people money and doing charity work.

Anyway it is pointless discussing this with you considering that you are clearly pro ECB and can't even see how this is coup for ECB.

[Dr Cricket]

Lets not forget they only getting that figure because they joins hands with BCCI on the big 3 deal and then the two board stab bcci in the back and still get to keep the money and by looking at your comment rich, make it even look like it is a good deal.

if you were arguing that all the other full members should have their share reduced to cover the funding for the associates and allow the BCCI to get a bigger cut then you might actually have a point but your usual agenda shines through in saying only the ECB and CA should get less money

back on ignore however before i say anything else i regret

if that was possible BCCI will propose it, but obviously you can't do that considering no sane board will vote for less money.
The associates were only getting a blanket zero because that was the only way for BCCI to get more money and also get the votes from the other boards.

Well of course BCCI and indian fans will be fuming at ECB and CA considering they the ones laughing the most at the moment.
no way would any BCCI official accept a new deal where BCCI are getting a massive cut and ECB/CA get to keep most of the money and the way the deal was rushed in ICC circles whiles BCCI were in domestic turmoil.

[andy]

[Dr Cricket]

Definitely no right answer or middle ground here,
basically a coup by the other full member or no money for the Associates.
I suppose the coup could be seen as being fairer with most of the member getting the same amount but if you feel that you bring most of the money you are not exactly going to like ECB/CA basically conning you out of money that you feel entitled to.

I'm sure it's been said elsewhere, but the previous change was more of a coup. 3 nations taking control by intimidation. What's happening now is an attempt to redress the balance.

The Big 3 stitch-up created a new normal for the BCCI - they're comparing the new figures to those they've been receiving for just a couple of years. How does the new percentage compared to the old system, before the Big 3? That's the better comparison. Is it more? Is it less?

[
.

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.

[Dr Cricket]

Also BCCI does make it a good point surely the best market to expand would be india, IE Rural india or places in india that still don't have cricket facilities or the cricket bug.
Surely more money should be spent on India to make sure Cricket is the king in india and not see other sports take a share from the pie.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think Matt sums it up best. But it doesn't find a middle ground, because there isn't one.