Big Three take over ICC?

[meninblue]

I've heard many Indians excuse BCCI management on the basis that England and Australia used to rule based on their own interests with scant regard for others.

Sadly this shows that they still don't want to learn the lessons of cricket pasts, and even worse - England and Australia are not learning from their own pasts. They should know better.

The three boards should be doing more to involve the other nations. Yet not only does this new system give them more power and influence, it gives them a greater share of the income. World cricket will not survive if there are only three nations allowed to be financially successful.

I fully understand that world cricket cannot stand still. But there are better ways to move forward. In terms of the FTP, the main things I want are:

- minimum of three Tests per series. 2 Test series are just too short.

- no back to back series. Whilst this year's Ashes were (I hope) a one-off, in recent years we have played such double-series against Bangaldesh, New Zealand and West Indies (though the latter was a late schedule change).

- more involvement for associate nations through tri-series (ODIs and T20s). Play each other twice for a total of 6 games (because it involves 3 teams you can play the matches closer together).

- a proper format for the World Cup. Group stage plus standard knockout. The Champions Trophy format works brilliantly, but doesn't involve the smaller nations.

Problem is, money rules and if anything my suggestions would mean less money (for the main nations). ODIs make more money than Tests, whilst the World Cup in 2007 (?) was a disaster from a money/sponsorship POV because India went out in the group stage.

Yes, that is the consensus at our club.Whilst everyone is of the opinion that BCCI are not doing the correct things in recent times, England and Australias cricket boards were no saints when they had power in cricket and how it affected some nations in many aspects.I do believe there is truth in some of the instances that are often discussed at our club.Here, ECB and CA are equal partners to BCCI. I am surprised that South Africa is out of this.The proposal might not be too difficult to get passed.

I heard that BCCI helped West Indies in huge amounts financially after that WC.That was for renovation of grounds and probably for grassroot cricket development as well.

[meninblue]

How could CSA be indebted to the BCCI?

We have even hosted the IPL for them?

I don't think CSA is indebted to BCCI

The only partnership i am aware of between CSA and BCCI is Champions League which works on shared revenue model. BCCI (50%, CSA and CA 25 % each).But then thats a partnership.I do wonder why South Africa is not going to be a part of this as they are one of BCCI's strong allies.

[biltongbek]

How could CSA be indebted to the BCCI?

We have even hosted the IPL for them?

I don't think CSA is indebted to BCCI

The only partnership i am aware of between CSA and BCCI is Champions League which works on shared revenue model. BCCI (50%, CSA and CA 25 % each).But then thats a partnership.I do wonder why South Africa is not going to be a part of this as they are one of BCCI's strong allies.

I think it is clear from what happened this year that the alliance has been damaged if not irrivocably damaged.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe the allegations of corruption over bonuses to CSA counts against them?

[Alviro Patterson]

Biggest concern with national cricket boards taking more control is that the IPL may well end up with it's own calendar, which means the ECB will be restricted in scheduling home series.

Two tier test cricket can only realistically work if more associate members are granted test matches, the top eight are more than capable of giving each other a stiff contest so denying the right of 7th an 8th to play the best test teams won't improve overall standards.

A World Test Championship can be be done without much reform to the current systems in place. Ensure all tours featutring test nations are a minimum of two tests and the top 10 test nations play each other over a 4 year period. Of course it means certain test nations having to play Zimbabwe, but such fixtures could just consist of a two test match series and the visiting fixture played on neutral terriority as a form of compromise. For test series with more than two matches, use the last two matches of that series for the WTC qualifying stage. A knockout stage won't last longer than 3 weeks, which can be spread out over the calendar year if necessary.

[meninblue]

How could CSA be indebted to the BCCI?

We have even hosted the IPL for them?

I don't think CSA is indebted to BCCI

The only partnership i am aware of between CSA and BCCI is Champions League which works on shared revenue model. BCCI (50%, CSA and CA 25 % each).But then thats a partnership.I do wonder why South Africa is not going to be a part of this as they are one of BCCI's strong allies.

I think it is clear from what happened this year that the alliance has been damaged if not irrivocably damaged.

Yes, that could probably be one of the reason.

[Making_Splinters]

On the plus side, this will get rid of the vote buying that has gone on in the past and allow for significantly more effective management of the international game. Other than that it is a terrible idea, hardly suprising that this news has been tied to the news of a two teir test system, which would destroy cricket outside the top tier.

[Albondiga]

There are more important things than money The game of cricket is one of them.

[D/L]

There are more important things than money The game of cricket is one of them.

True, but try telling that to the money men in charge of cricket, Albondiga!

The level of venality that seems to be at the heart of cricket administration is astounding sometimes.

[Alviro Patterson]

Cost to watch England v India ODI at Headingley on the Western Terrace

2007: £27.00
2014: £50 or £55

Tells all you need to know how money orientated cricket is these days

[backfootpunch]

im slightly confused, how could this possibly get passed, why would the other test nations vote for something that would dramatically reduce there influence and revenue

[meninblue]

7 votes from 10 voters are required to get this disgraceful proposal passed. CSA have come out in media and opposed it. Pakistan might not challenge if in returns they get BCCI's nod for a series with India. SriLanka is playing lot of series versus India in recent times, so they are unlikely to join it as well. There is less chance that the lesser powerful boards are going to challenge this. Even if they are challenged BCCI,CA and ECB will assure them of series home and abroad to get their backing in return. The only major cricketing board opposing this might be CSA. I think the chances of this proposal getting passed is more. Eventually,BCCI will have a major say amongst ECB and CA as they will bring in most revenue.

[mikesiva]

'Cricket South Africa has become the first national board to call for the ICC to withdraw the draft proposal that would put power in international cricket in the hands of India, England and Australia. South Africa have been identified as the big losers in the potential changes, which, if adopted, could be viewed as a power grab by the three nations that bring most revenue into the international game. Calling the plans "in breach of the ICC constitution", CSA has now made its opposition clear. The "position paper", drawn up by a working group of the ICC's Finance & Commercial Affairs (F&CA) committee, is due to be put to the ICC Executive Board at its quarterly meeting in Dubai on January 28-29. The proposals would need seven votes out of ten to pass. Despite South Africa's position as the No. 1-ranked Test side in the world, if the proposals were adopted, their projected share of future revenues at every stage would fall below than even that of the Pakistan board. South Africa's relationship with India has declined markedly since they appointed Haroon Lorgat as chief executive of their own board. It was Lorgat, as ICC chief executive, who championed the Woolf report, which proposed placing the ICC in the hands of independent directors. Lorgat's subsequent feud saw him ousted at the ICC and cold-shouldered by the BCCI, which refused to deal with him as India undertook a much-reduced tour of South Africa last year.'

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 11713.html

'Apart from New Zealand Cricket's director Martin Snedden and Bangladesh Cricket Board president Nazmul Hassan, there has been little official comment on the draft paper from all the member boards, particularly those outside the Big Three. Hassan told reporters in Dhaka on Monday that Bangladesh could not raise a voice of protest. "We can't do anything on our own. I can protest but if the other nine countries are on one side, there's not much I can do," Hassan said. "I have to find countries who are in our position, read through the proposals and then think what to do." Other than the BCB and CSA, the countries who disagree with the proposals do not wish to be identified. However, the WICB and one other board have called special meetings since news of the papers was released last week. The member boards are in discussion with each other about the documents.'

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 11647.html

A bunch of impotent, spineless jokers....

[D/L]

...Eventually,BCCI will have a major say amongst ECB and CA as they will bring in most revenue.

This brings me back to the point about the worrying prospect of the BCCI being the loudest voice in a chorus of only three.

[Arthur Crabtree]

How much do the assurances of the three boards mean Adi? After the way the BCCI acted over their tour to SA which was cut in half out of a whimsical self interest. I also remember the ECB having cricket taken off the list of events that had to be broadcast on free to air, on the understanding they wouldn't do so...