Big Three take over ICC?

[Aidan11]

Can't see it happening.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Though the idea of a two tier system from which the top tier can't be relegated should consign all this to the dustbin. Surely the other counties can't vote for this. Not even Sepp Blatter could come up with that idea.

[meninblue]

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...

The series with India mean a lot. The advertising revenues are huge for broadcasters. Cricket is now a business.Fans have accepted match fixing the way scams happen in corporates.Life just moves on after all the rubbish. Also, series with Australia and England are probably sellers for broadcasters which will help the other playing country as well.The tour to SA was cut short due to BCCI being unhappy as mentioned in that CI article.My guess is that we will see more series between top nations and less between lesser teams.IPL etc will get less clashing series so the English players as well can participate in it.Similarly England and Australia will earn more than other nations.One can expect a change in broadcast strategy with a new business model.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'd say that it is in the interest of the big three to keep competition strong for their own purposes. Of course, if you're Coke, it's good for business if you get rid of Pepsi. In sport, that's not the case.

[meninblue]

They will have to keep other lesser cricketing nations matches, but they can schedule the prime tournaments the way they want.BCCI will demand that no major cricketing action happen during IPL.Similarly Cricket Australia might want global cricket stars to be available for their Big Bash.If they have better power they can manipulate much better so that they remain more profitable.

[meninblue]

iirc NZC get 10% of the match fee being received by NZL players playing in IPL. No wonder they are happy.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/ ... 11533.html

Martin Snedden, the New Zealand Cricket (NZC) director, has said that the possibility of the ICC handing over power to the Big Three - India, England and Australia - and allowing them to control the game's finances may not be a bad thing for world cricket.

[meninblue]

This is what we have been saying and the NZC director feels same.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/newzealand/ ... 11533.html

The BCCI continues to generate the majority of the income for the ICC and though Snedden admitted that it will be more of the same, he said that cricket boards will have to embrace India's control.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Which already happens. But the two tiers?

[meninblue]

Which already happens. But the two tiers?

Arthur, we have seen it being used in domestic levels (Ranji Trophy, County ).It has advantages as well as disadvantages.

[D/L]

...BCCI will demand that no major cricketing action happen during IPL...

I agree and they would probably get their way. That is a major reason why the proposal should be vigourously resisted. The BCCI, in their own self-interest, have already brought about a significant dumbing down of the great game.

[from_the_stands]

I know what they're going to do. Four teams will contest the top flight in Test cricket; Australia, England, India and the Rest of the World. They will each play 15 Test each per year; 2 at home, 3 away and visa-versa in the second year. The same number of ODI's and T20I's will also take place. The Rest of the World will consist of players from the remaining tiers of Test cricket.

Teams in tier 2; Bangladesh, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, West Indies.
Teams in tier 3; Afghanistan, Ireland, Netherlands, Scotland, United Arab Emirates, Zimbabwe (four day cricket with fc status)
Teams in tier 4; Canada, Hong Kong, Kenya, Namibia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea (four day cricket, but no fc status)

Teams in tiers 2-4 play each other twice a year; once at home and one away (10 matches each per year), with promotion and relegation at the end of each calendar year. Same number of ODI's & T20I's.

A window is created for the IPL, the BBL and what ever the Poms are going to call theirs.

Throw in a 50 over World Cup every four years.

Job done.

[mikesiva]

'Some of the officials from group of seven members, outside the Big Three, ESPNCricinfo spoke to admitted that they were concerned by development. "We have been talking between ourselves. Everyone is disturbed because the draft proposal will have greater repercussions on futures of members' cricket," a senior board official from the seven-member group of nations said. His greatest fear was the Australia-England-India triad were getting the majority of the funds while the G-7 were left with nothing much. "You need money to run the sport. They have proposed to make FTP optional. For such decisions you have to have everybody along. They are acting like UN Security Council where the Big Three have veto powers," the official said. The "position paper", as the 21-page document was titled, was revealed to the Full Members for the first time during an additional ICC Board meeting to discuss "financial matters" called suddenly on January 9 in Dubai. When the proposal was presented, it not only took the representatives of the rest of the seven Full Members by surprise but also caught unawares the top brass of the ICC, comprising of president Alan Isaac, Mustafa Kamal (vice-president) and Dave Richardson (chief executive).'


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 11901.html

This is sounding more and more like a James Bond movie every day....

[Making_Splinters]

Any introduction of a tier based system into cricket would destroy cricket for those outside the top tier. Would you really want to see your side playing no one but the Windies, New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. For those in the top tier it would be great, but so incredibly short sighted it beggers belief.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The top tier will be the top eight sides. The lower tier will be the next eight. Every four years the bottom of the top tier plays.... home and away in a play off. The future tours programme will be abandoned and the boards will negotiate their series directly.

[Alviro Patterson]

In principle a two tier of eight is a good idea for cricket as a whole, providing the eight teams play each other home and away in the 4 years. It gives associate members something to aim for whilst the lower full members have no option but to take test cricket seriously if they want to survive.

But the "Big Three" exempt from relegation for financial reasons makes no sense, you would think lucrative tours are continued to be played regardless of test ranking (i.e. The Ashes). Alternatively the proposal should have contained The ECB, BCCI and CA shall be allowed to play against each other on a biennial basis regardless of test ranking position, due to the matches being of a prestigious level." After all the revenue generated from these tours go to the boards, not the ICC.