Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

the worrying thing with the 'big three' idea is that, they could quite easily buy smaller nations votes...etc Ban,Zim,SL...

It does appear that the various powerful cricket boards and the ICC make lots of money, be very interested to know where that goes. Sport administration seems incredibly "old boys" network, and this decision seems to affirm that belief.

Maybe we have to get used to the idea that by 2045 we have colonised the moon, found lots of Iron Ore worth lots of money, and will schedule the T20 World cup in the Sea of Tranquility in Winter when the temperature is -185...... the ICC pockets heaps of cash while telling us that its great to move the sport to other parts of the galaxy.....

Everyone is a winner... YAY!

"There is no widespread hue and cry in England over the clandestine deal that leaves the ECB on the brink of reasserting its position as a dominant force in the world game, no concerted calls for resignations or all-night vigils outside Lord's. Instead, there is a perception that Giles Clarke, chairman of the ECB and inveterate entrepreneur, could be on the brink of pulling off one of English cricket's great diplomatic triumphs, a triumph that completes a remarkable turnaround in England's relationship with India: adversary to ally in less than seven years. Idealists have raged - and with good reason - about the undemocratic nature of the plans that could leave India, Australia and England as the game's ruling elite, able to do much as they please, issuing instructions from on high to the weaker nations about how they should conduct their affairs, but there is no sign of widespread discontent. Nor will there be. Much of English cricket is secretly pleased, applauding the dark arts which promise to bring the ECB back in from the cold. Clarke is presumed to have played a political game as impressive as any produced by Lord Mandelson, the Labour Party's arch spin doctor, at the height of his powers. Because make no mistake, this arrangement has been driven by Clarke without the consensus of the ECB. If the ICC's executive board accepts the proposals planned in secret for months, and formally put forward by a working party of the Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee, when it meets in Dubai on January 28-29, England will have a hold on power not seen since the removal of the England and Australian veto in 1996. English cricket is not guilty about this power grab because, by and large, it is heartily sick of guilt. For 17 years, England has felt itself excluded and mistrusted because of its colonial history, outmanoeuvred at every turn by countries often press-ganged whether they cared to admit it or not into voting on racial lines. The democracy which many are fighting so passionately to protect has regularly been proved to be a sham."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/co ... 12151.html

This article seems to be missing the point in so many ways....

1) Getting England back into the role of joint powerbroker at the expense of the development of cricket in the weaker countries does not count for much of a diplomatic coup....

2) England was not mistrusted in cricket circles because of their colonial history, but rather because in the bad old days, they ganged up with Australia to control the ICC on racial lines. sadly, when India took over, the voting on racial lines continued, but with the shoe on the other foot. Let's not forget what happened before the rise of the BCCI. This writer is committing at error of omission....

3) I don't see Clarke's triumph as comparable to the spin-doctoring of Mandelson. I see Clarke's complicity in this destructive deal as very sad, and very disappointing....

Hopps can go on congratulating Clarke while cricket declines as a sport in other parts of the world...pretty soon, the only people who care will reside in just three countries - India, England and Australia.

cricketfan90 wrote:the worrying thing with the 'big three' idea is that, they could quite easily buy smaller nations votes...etc Ban,Zim,SL...

Is that any different from now though? The general perception is that most countries side with India as they have the money and therefore the power. I've heard it said that one of the reasons I dies pushed for Bangladesh to become a Test nation was so that they could gain another sub continent vote.

@ mike

Read that earlier. An interesting read and a different perspective is always good, but I agree that it seems to be missing the point.

If you are looking at it from a purely selfish and short-term perspective, then yes you can congratulate Clarke. But it feels a bit like congratulating a banker for their bonus, or supporting an MP who has introduced a policy that benefits the richest but negatively affecting the working classes.

If he has managed to build good relationships with India, then that is at least one good thing to come out of this.

mikesiva wrote:2) England was not mistrusted in cricket circles because of their colonial history, but rather because in the bad old days, they ganged up with Australia to control the ICC on racial lines. sadly, when India took over, the voting on racial lines continued, but with the shoe on the other foot. Let's not forget what happened before the rise of the BCCI. This writer is committing at error of omission....

Nice summary.

Money, money, money!!!!

The worst case scenario here is that the BCCI withdraw from the ICC completely. The IPL expands to stage a 50 over competition, and a 5 day competition to replace Test cricket. In a calendar year, each IPL franchise will play; 14 T20 fixtures, 14 50 over fixtures, and 14 5 day matches. All up, 98 days of cricket. Players will earn millions each year, being based exclusively in India.

And we'll have to put up with listening to Danny Morrison for all of it.

from_the_stands wrote:The worst case scenario here is that the BCCI withdraw from the ICC completely. The IPL expands to stage a 50 over competition, and a 5 day competition to replace Test cricket. In a calendar year, each IPL franchise will play; 14 T20 fixtures, 14 50 over fixtures, and 14 5 day matches. All up, 98 days of cricket. Players will earn millions each year, being based exclusively in India.

After the last Ashes series it seems appealling.

Can there be a future for international cricket without INdia? Probably. I can't see why it would help them to isolate themselves. Though if India left the ICC, Australia and England might follow. For those who see the value of the game in monetary terms, that doesn't seem good for anyone.

The BCCI withdrawing from the ICC doesn't necessarily mean India won't play international cricket. What's to stop another cricket board created in India with it's own first class system/infrastructure and apply for full test status? The ICC still award India the 2016 World Twenty20 and 2023 World Cup hosting rights, although it would be a race against time to get ready for the World T20.

Short-term pain an Indian team of a lesser standard and the ICC take a hit in revenue streams, but both can recover and cricket can flourish again. As a result the BCCI go bust because they can't recruit the best players for IPL cricket, because the ICC deem the competition unofficial and issue banning orders for anyone who plays IPL cricket.

Firstly, BCCI will never isolate itself from the ICC because they have so much power now in cricketing world. Also, in case BCCI is isolated by any reason it will still make huge revenue as the cricket crazy Indian population is too huge. Even IPL as single expanded tournament will be enough to sustain the revues for BCCI.Unless the cricket crazy Indian fans don't give up , cricketing board in India will never get into any losses. The way they have marketed IPL as a product to the fans as well as cricketers and boards of other countries is amazing in business aspects.

Who knows BCCI will come up with its own 50 over tournament wherein the international players continue to play along side IPL.It will find ways to increase the revenues if it isolates or is isolated.

Alviro Patterson wrote:The BCCI withdrawing from the ICC doesn't necessarily mean India won't play international cricket. What's to stop another cricket board created in India with it's own first class system/infrastructure and apply for full test status? The ICC still award India the 2016 World Twenty20 and 2023 World Cup hosting rights, although it would be a race against time to get ready for the World T20.

Short-term pain an Indian team of a lesser standard and the ICC take a hit in revenue streams, but both can recover and cricket can flourish again. As a result the BCCI go bust because they can't recruit the best players for IPL cricket, because the ICC deem the competition unofficial and issue banning orders for anyone who plays IPL cricket.

You get this a lot in some sports nowadays, Glamour competitions where money flies around but non of it is channelled into worthwhile sustainability for the sport. Just look at Chelsea, they just paid 25 million Euro's for a player they had but only played 3 times in as many years they owned before. The fact is, without the grassroots being there people dont become sportsmen, they dont have the facilities, they dont have the opportunities. The idea that a sporting board based on money and only glamour being successful doesnt even get passed square one.

The ICL is a perfect example. The BCCI banned the talent from playing, the ICC followed suit, so people stopped going to play, interest waned, the competition was abandoned. Packer nearly bankrupt the ACB but couldnt make something economically viable for more than 3 years, with everyone in Australian cricket apart from the players ending financially shot..... did anyone really give a shite about Stanford, or was it only beamed to our tv's because this fraudster had suffocated the ICC with so much money that the ICC didnt give a shite what he, or his product, meant???

In order to make something sustainable and long term you have to invest in the right areas of interest and make sure that the youngsters have access to playing so that the sport is self sustained.....so in order to make a cricket board, you have to be a cricket board. You cannot have a sustainable product by scrubbing everything but the top level investment out because where would the next Tendulkar come?

BCCI has started to react to get the work done.


BCCI puts ICC events on the line

The BCCI today virtually served notice on any ICC Full Members opposed to a makeover of the ruling body, indicating that India's participation in ICC events was subject to approval of the radical draft proposal by the ICC's executive board. The proposal recommends a structural overhaul of the ICC and proposes bigger revenues and more executive decision-making powers to the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/conte ... 12253.html