Random Cricket Thread (International Cricket)

[yuppie]

if this article is true its the associates the BCCI want to screw over, all the other full members would get the same money and all of the money earmarked for the associates would go to the BCCI

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/ ... 94878.html

i've got even less sympathy for them now, and i didn't have much to begin with, as growing associate cricket is something the ICC should be doing more of not having the funding for them taken away to give to the richest board out there

money still going to get cut from Associates considering ICC are planning to give another 100M to BCCI.

They will still get some though. Unless the BCCI gets its way.

[Dr Cricket]

Surprised more not be been mention about the coup ECB and CA have achieved.
should be remembered both board are not facing any major cuts from the big 3 figures.
if anything Associates are still getting a very small percent to what they getting 5-6 yrs ago.
from what I see the Associates are not getting more money from the big 3 deal.
most of the early money cutted from BCCI going to all the other full members not associate nations.
pretty wrong to say Associates are losing out.
considering in real terms they not losing money the only two nations losing money are ireland and Afghanistan but then BCCI did say ICC should find 160M somewhere to pay them as well more.

If boards really cared about Associate cricket then all the boards will be getting way less money considering in the past system pre big 3 all the boards are getting way above for what they should be getting if it was the same system.
Like I said before if they really wanted Associate cricket to prosper they would cut every board money and give it to them not just cut BCCI money and give it to other full members.
this is pretty much the same thing as big 3 deal the only difference is that it benefits all the full members excluding BCCI and not just the big 3.
The fact Giles Clarkes and CA changed their tune says everything.

[rich1uk]

Worse result for ICC and other board would be bcci backing out of away games and ipl extended by 2 weeks and the sept window used for overseas ipl.
That would pretty much harm all boards.

or it would show the BCCI up for being a bunch of selfish assholes more interested in money than the good of the game

TBH BCCI are entailed to a home season.
suspect SA or Aus boxing days games against india is at risk, considering BCCI could just say when ever india play domestic cricket games in india, the team can't be touring other places.
would mean no cricket from Sept/October to Feb/march bit like CA or ECB do now.

did i say they weren't entitled to a home season ?

what you described there is a far different thing to the post i replied to where you said the BCCI would just stop playing away series and extend the IPL to impact all other boards out of nothing but self interest

[rich1uk]

Surprised more not be been mention about the coup ECB and CA have achieved.
should be remembered both board are not facing any major cuts from the big 3 figures.
if anything Associates are still getting a very small percent to what they getting 5-6 yrs ago.
from what I see the Associates are not getting more money from the big 3 deal.
most of the early money cutted from BCCI going to all the other full members not associate nations.
pretty wrong to say Associates are losing out.
considering in real terms they not losing money the only two nations losing money are ireland and Afghanistan but then BCCI did say ICC should find 160M somewhere to pay them as well more.

If boards really cared about Associate cricket then all the boards will be getting way less money considering in the past system pre big 3 all the boards are getting way above for what they should be getting if it was the same system.
Like I said before if they really wanted Associate cricket to prosper they would cut every board money and give it to them not just cut BCCI money and give it to other full members.
this is pretty much the same thing as big 3 deal the only difference is that it benefits all the full members excluding BCCI and not just the big 3.
The fact Giles Clarkes and CA changed their tune says everything.

what coup have the ECB and CA achieved, under the proposed model CA get the same as all the other boards except for the ECB and BCCI and the ECB only get £11M more than the other boards do

if thats meant to be some sort of coup that CA get the same as bangladseh and the WI i'm not sure what you would have thought a bad result for them was ...

do you actually read what you post btw bhav ?

you are saying the associates are not getting a very good deal under the new model but defending the BCCI for wanting to cut the whole of the £280M that is going to associates and keeping it for themselves

thats obviously a much better deal for the associates isn't it

[Dr Cricket]

Don't compare it to the big 3 deal, compare it to the one before that.
it isn't rocket science that ECB/CA get to keep most of their money, and BCCI face most of the cuts which goes to the other boards so it can get passed that is a coup.

[rich1uk]

Don't compare it to the big 3 deal, compare it to the one before that.
it isn't rocket science that ECB/CA get to keep most of their money, and BCCI face most of the cuts which goes to the other boards so it can get passed that is a coup.

but they are not benefitting from what you are calling a coup are they ?

they are basically just getting the same as everyone else

your problem is you fail to recognise just how much the previous deal favoured the BCCI and this deal fixes that

the previous "big three deal" was a massive coup for the BCCI in financial terms and now they are throwing their toys out of the pram because its been fixed

the ICC is meant to exist to do whats best for the game as a whole, not just whats best for the BCCI and i dont see how anyone can say that a more equitable split of the money involved, including £280M for the associates can possibly be a bad thing

your argument that the ECB and CA aren't really losing any money so its a good deal for them is incredibly flawed when you consider they are just getting the same as the other boards

[Dr Cricket]

Associates are getting peanuts anyway, they only getting about 7M in 8yrs, that isn't even enough for the likes of Scotland, netherlands let alone fund the game.
I suppose something is good.
that is nothing compared to what they got before.
What I hate is people stating this is a good deal for Associates it isn't.
it is only a good deal for the full members including BCCI in reality, it is a coup for the full members, end of no different to the Big 3.
if people really cared about associate cricket they would hate the deal and shouldn't see BCCI losing or getting a cut misleading what is really happening.

Like I said before they either give boards they rightful share or they don't give any extra money to the full members and keep it how it was before where only 50% of the money went to the full member and equally shared, the rest to the ICC.

[Dr Cricket]

Don't compare it to the big 3 deal, compare it to the one before that.
it isn't rocket science that ECB/CA get to keep most of their money, and BCCI face most of the cuts which goes to the other boards so it can get passed that is a coup.

but they are not benefitting from what you are calling a coup are they ?

they are basically just getting the same as everyone else

your problem is you fail to recognise just how much the previous deal favoured the BCCI and this deal fixes that

the previous "big three deal" was a massive coup for the BCCI in financial terms and now they are throwing their toys out of the pram because its been fixed

You do realise ECB/cA and the other boards are getting way more than they would be getting before the big 3 deal.
it is a coup that the boards are keeping the money still and it being made out like Associates are getting more money when it is a fact they are losing out big time.
the only winners here are ECB, CA and the other full members and to a lesser extent BCCI,

[rich1uk]

Associates are getting peanuts anyway, they only getting about 7M in 8yrs, that isn't even enough for the likes of Scotland, netherlands let alone fund the game.
I suppose something is good.
that is nothing compared to what they got before.
What I hate is people stating this is a good deal for Associates it isn't.
it is only a good deal for the full members including BCCI in reality, it is a coup for the full members, end of no different to the Big 3.
if people really cared about associate cricket they would hate the deal and shouldn't see BCCI losing or getting a cut misleading what is really happening.

Like I said before they either give boards they rightful share or they don't give any extra money to the full members and keep it how it was before where only 50% of the money went to the full member and equally shared, the rest to the ICC.

i haven't made any comment on whether its a good deal for the associates but its an infinitely better deal than them getting nothing and it all going to the board that is already the richest which is what the BCCI want to do

[rich1uk]

Don't compare it to the big 3 deal, compare it to the one before that.
it isn't rocket science that ECB/CA get to keep most of their money, and BCCI face most of the cuts which goes to the other boards so it can get passed that is a coup.

but they are not benefitting from what you are calling a coup are they ?

they are basically just getting the same as everyone else

your problem is you fail to recognise just how much the previous deal favoured the BCCI and this deal fixes that

the previous "big three deal" was a massive coup for the BCCI in financial terms and now they are throwing their toys out of the pram because its been fixed

You do realise ECB/cA and the other boards are getting way more than they would be getting before the big 3 deal.
it is a coup that the boards are keeping the money still and it being made out like Associates are getting more money when it is a fact they are losing out big time.
the only winners here are ECB, CA and the other full members and to a lesser extent BCCI,

but the only board complaining about the deal, wanting to change it and threatening to take actions that would be damaging for the game is the BCCI who want to take all of the money away from the associates and keep it for themselves

[Dr Cricket]

if they were using the pre big 3 system, Associates were getting https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/ ... d-scotland
Associates loss 365M pounds in funding which all went to the big 3 and now to make it simple for Rich that money goes to the other boards with the money getting cut from BCCI share.
if you can't see that being a coup for ECB/CA and the other boards then I am loss.

Considering it is a fact that ECB/CA mostly keep big 3 money, it is a fact Associates are getting similar or same money and it is also a fact all the boards getting a increase barring ECB/BCCI.
that is a coup for the full members, no different to the big 3.

[rich1uk]

keep it simple for me ?

i am having to try so hard atm to avoid getting banned so i'll just ignore you

[Dr Cricket]

I be honest the big 3 deal wasn't that bad, if they planned it better and not kept it a secret it would have worked.
bad pr and the other member not being in board lost it.
in principle the idea was probably the best way forward.
I worry now that BCCI will just care about money and power and not running or caring about world cricket.
with the big 3 deal it made it more likely BCCI/ECB/CA were going to look at the global picture since if ICC makes more money they get more money etc and plus in reality ECB/BCCI did make good point for why they should get more money, IE they actually do need more money to expand cricket in india/England to maintain or increase cricket following the only issue was no one really trusted Srini or Giles Clarke, Not sure how anyone could take Clarke seriously the guy changes opinion or sides when ever it suits him, but have to give him credit the guy manages to get away with everything, not sure how the dude survived big 3, the only one to still have a job after it.


if they didn't screw Associates over suspect the Big 3 deal would have been perfect.
now with this one I worry it will just be like before where boards don't really care about the global game and will just care about their home season or short term interest, more of a worry now when you consider each boards wants a T20 competition and possibly a Window for it.
apparently if any competition outside IPL gets a window, international cricket might be finish considering if one board gets a window all the boards want one.
Big 3 could have kept the T20 leagues outside the big 3 in check considering international cricket would still be the number 1 earner for the other 7 boards, now you worry all the boards want they own T20 leagues and getting the most money they can.

[Alviro Patterson]

Worse result for ICC and other board would be bcci backing out of away games and ipl extended by 2 weeks and the sept window used for overseas ipl.
That would pretty much harm all boards.

or it would show the BCCI up for being a bunch of selfish assholes more interested in money than the good of the game

ICC could just turn round and not recognise the BCCI as the official cricketing body of India and issue hefty bans to any cricketer participating in a BCCI event (namely the IPL).

[rich1uk]

Worse result for ICC and other board would be bcci backing out of away games and ipl extended by 2 weeks and the sept window used for overseas ipl.
That would pretty much harm all boards.

or it would show the BCCI up for being a bunch of selfish assholes more interested in money than the good of the game

ICC could just turn round and not recognise the BCCI as the official cricketing body of India and issue hefty bans to any cricketer participating in a BCCI event (namely the IPL).

which also wouldn't really help anyone as the possibility of the BCCI running a longer IPL would create a modern day Packer situation

we've got people trying to fix a really bad deal from a couple of years ago and greed showing up front and centre