Big Three take over ICC?

[meninblue]

Some of the "Small 7" are only happy to whore their players out for the IPL, even going as far as replacing a test series with an ODI tri-series involving India. Half the test nations are capable of hosting international cricket in April, so if the "Small 7" want to generate some income then arrange a series for then.

I guess New Zealand cricket board gets 10% of the revenue share earned by New Zealand cricketers in IPL - which is tempting amount.Will get more once Corey signs a million /multi million contract this season. BCCI might be having such deals with other boards too, or they might lure other boards with such option in future .

[mikesiva]

Resolution passed....

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 17377.html

This is the end of world cricket as we know it.

I doubt that , mike. Redistribution of funds - hopefully with more to go around for everyone (?)...

How does everyone get more from a redistribution?

Sounds like creative accounting to me....

I listened to the press conference given by Dave Cameron yesterday....

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/C ... 00191.html

Basically, this is how it will work:

1) The only tours of the Caribbean that earn money for the WICB are England and India. So, expect more tours by these two, and hardly any from the likes of Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. I fail to see how the West Indies losing regularly to these two will improve our cricket. Given this option, I prefer the much-criticised FTP any day.

2) The WICB will only be able to command good fees for the West Indies touring countries like England, Australia and India if they move up the rankings. That won't happen if the WIndies play England and India regularly, and not those in the "Small 7". Cameron is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks the WI "brand" MUST improve or get better. Just because we're near the bottom now, doesn't automatically mean the only way is up.

3) India claim that a fund will be put aside for series like WI-NZ. Let's see how bottomless that pit is....

[mikesiva]

"I agree that the ICC must be stronger. It should be like the FIFA or the IOC [International Olympic Committee] - very strong in the things they do. FIFA said when you kick the ball back to the goalkeeper he has got to kick it out. I don't see Italy and England and France saying we are not playing. We have one team playing without DRS. If we have something it has got to be globally done. Everybody has got to work together. We can't have three countries ruling cricket. It can't be done. It comes back to money. I hope one day everything will come back to normal. I think the ICC should be running cricket. They should say to the highest bidder, television company to send out a tender - saying we want 5 million for so many Test matches for the next couple of years. That money should be distributed either on rankings or equally. That money can be used to run cricket properly. Players can be paid better. If we are saying Test cricket is the highest cricket you can play, you should be paid better. We all have to sit down and work out a better system for all countries."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/ ... 16159.html

[hopeforthebest]

"I agree that the ICC must be stronger. It should be like the FIFA or the IOC [International Olympic Committee] - very strong in the things they do. FIFA said when you kick the ball back to the goalkeeper he has got to kick it out. I don't see Italy and England and France saying we are not playing. We have one team playing without DRS. If we have something it has got to be globally done. Everybody has got to work together. We can't have three countries ruling cricket. It can't be done. It comes back to money. I hope one day everything will come back to normal. I think the ICC should be running cricket. They should say to the highest bidder, television company to send out a tender - saying we want 5 million for so many Test matches for the next couple of years. That money should be distributed either on rankings or equally. That money can be used to run cricket properly. Players can be paid better. If we are saying Test cricket is the highest cricket you can play, you should be paid better. We all have to sit down and work out a better system for all countries."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/ ... 16159.html

The FIFA and IOC are hardly good examples to follow, they are steeped in corruption. Cricket has nations who's cricket boards are too close to the politicians and have corruption but it has yet to spread throughout the game. Having three nations running cricket is an improvement on the game being run as it was, only by the BCCI.

[Alviro Patterson]

If Clive Lloyd wants West Indies players to be handsomely rewarded for playing test cricket, then it is up to the WICB to orientate central contracts towards test match participation. The incentive is there with non "big three" nations able to receive financial assistance from the ICC so test series can be hosted without making a loss.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Gonna have to read about what is going on with the ICC when I can stir myself. From the headlines it appears that it could be a case of a sporting body moving towards the good of all in the game. Which would be amazing. Looks like two divisions has been kicked out and a Test championship is back on, which I'm not sure is a good fit for Tests. And making Ireland and Afghanistana Test side feels a little too optimistic. It seems like the hegemony of the big three might be rolled back, but would be nice for idealists everywhere, which means it probably won't happen.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Hard to see the ICC can be biased against India.

Though they are not (currently) getting their way at the ICC meeting.

I'll be interested to know if the 'big three rollback' actually amounts to that, or just a change in terminology to diffuse resentment of a pretty unpopular change at the ICC. Though of course, the BCCI has been overhauled recently, so we don't know how they will react.

[meninblue]

Hard to see the ICC can be biased against India.

Though they are not (currently) getting their way at the ICC meeting.

I'll be interested to know if the 'big three rollback' actually amounts to that, or just a change in terminology to diffuse resentment of a pretty unpopular change at the ICC. Though of course, the BCCI has been overhauled recently, so we don't know how they will react.

More than ICC, the Lodha committee has created lot of problems for BCCI. What started with IPL fixing probe , ended up at administrators being appointed outside of BCCI purview, Srinivasan being dethroned. Others have also been removed from BCCI post. ICC seems to be taking some political mileage from this fight. BCCI's Vikram Limaye has not accepted citing he just got the post and hence due to lack of time cannot give his opinion on the proposed revenue model by which BCCI would get a lot less than the existing model.

[Arthur Crabtree]

More than ICC, the Lodha committee has created lot of problems for BCCI. What started with IPL fixing probe , ended up at administrators being appointed outside of BCCI purview, Srinivasan being dethroned. Others have also been removed from BCCI post. ICC seems to be taking some political mileage from this fight. BCCI's Vikram Limaye has not accepted citing he just got the post and hence due to lack of time cannot give his opinion on the proposed revenue model by which BCCI would get a lot less than the existing model.

I wondered if the ICC was striking now while the BCCI is in turmoil. But it can only change things if members traditionally loyal to India vote against Indian interests, which they might pay for down the line. And of course, the head of the ICC is a former head of the BCCI- Shashank Manohar- but he seems to have undergone a conversion. Strange situation.

[Dr Cricket]

Doubt ICC are playing a political game to screw BCCI considering the risk still remains of BCCI leaving the ICC and just screwing everyone and the entire sport but it is likely they using the opportunity of the turmoil of getting a few things passed through IE end of the big 3 voting monopoly, better cricket structure going forward and slowly reduce power from the boards and giving them to the ICC.

Also think the ICC know the current financial proposal won't get passed but they hoping the better cricket structure and the scrapping of the big 3 committee groups happens.
saying that hard to take ICC seriously one minute Giles clarke is best buddies with Srinivasan and the next he is against the Big 3 recommendation same with Richardson.

a series of tweets from innocent bystander will be how it would play out considering at the moment BCCI is confident of it not passing through and they lost the vote 7-3 lol.
"Anyone who thinks the BCCI will allow the ICC to run a more equitable model is living in cloud cuckoo land...aint happening..."
"Expect Cricket SA to fall in line with BCCI over the next couple of weeks...remember India are due a tour next year...not yet confirmed..."
"And then we will see the PCB 'promised' a series with India and they will be bending over to vote with their 'frenemies'...."
"Once those 3 are on board WICB (or whoever they are now) will soon bend over....these changes are dead in the water chaps..."
"Lord Haw Haw Dave Richardson will be rowing back on his proclamations sooner rather than later..."
"And when everything reverts back to the status quo, board heads will be falling over themselves to say they had no choice..."
"If the ICC cant drive this through with the BCCI hands tied being its back and impotent, what chances when they are back fighting...?"

Suspect what will happen is that BCCI will agree to a small cut but still getting more money than the past model before big 3, an new test championship linked with a new FTP gets passed with few other minor icc changes like test being delinked with membership and a small minute chance that haiti or gibralter can play test against india one day and crucially might in the future mean Zimbabwe losing full member status if ECB/BCCI/CA don't want them anymore.
the only thing that surprises me was how ICC were trying to annoying BCCI at the current proposal did they seriously think lodha committee would accept that awful deal for BCCI, unless that was a ploy by ICC to get the other proposal passed through while BCCI tries to block the revenue proposal that ICC knew won't happen anyway.
Why would BCCI ever accept a deal when they are getting less than the pre big 3 deal and every other board including ECB gets more than the pre big 3 deal.
The only time BCCI would accept it is if they got more money than before but even then chances are ICC and the other boards would have to give BCCI something in return for them being the only board to lose money accepting the proposal.

[meninblue]

More than ICC, the Lodha committee has created lot of problems for BCCI. What started with IPL fixing probe , ended up at administrators being appointed outside of BCCI purview, Srinivasan being dethroned. Others have also been removed from BCCI post. ICC seems to be taking some political mileage from this fight. BCCI's Vikram Limaye has not accepted citing he just got the post and hence due to lack of time cannot give his opinion on the proposed revenue model by which BCCI would get a lot less than the existing model.

I wondered if the ICC was striking now while the BCCI is in turmoil. But it can only change things if members traditionally loyal to India vote against Indian interests, which they might pay for down the line. And of course, the head of the ICC is a former head of the BCCI- Shashank Manohar- but he seems to have undergone a conversion. Strange situation.

Even if boards continue to support BCCI, BCCI has already been impacted by the recommendations. BCCI hereon can only do damage control. Everything has gone for a toss. The IPL auctions which were scheduled for 4th Feb have been postponed by few weeks. The schedules of series will also be impacted given new recommendations. Revenue will be hurt and there would be some chaos if advertisers will negotiate contract value.

[Dr Cricket]

Yep for some odd reason the supreme court wants to destroy world cricket.

[Making_Splinters]

From what it seems like, they want to introduce more accountability and transparency into Indian cricket.

[Dr Cricket]

From what it seems like, they want to introduce more accountability and transparency into Indian cricket.

Think they would be more accepted if they didn't try to change BCCI all the way through and make some crazy recommendation.
at one point they were thinking of banning adverts because apparently overseas broadcasters don't have adverts.

seen cricket in sub c channel and yes the adverts can be annoying and ruin the tv experience but frankly that blame goes to the tv people and the fact the Indian adverts got that annoying music or just annoying adverts that repeated all the time.
when itv had adverts every over it hardly bothered me during the IPL, so adverts don't ruin experience of the fan.

not sure it was wise to effectively ban all administrators and have strict time length for administrators.

I really don't see how they creating more accountability or transparency into the Indian cricket considering all they really doing is kicking the old people out and bringing new people in.

Think they would be more accepted if they started actually changing things rather just sacking everyone and not really telling anyone how BCCI would be different in the future.
for all the faults of BCCI it should be noted they been actually doing a good job in the grass root and domestic side of the game, if you look at the public bodies of other indian sports and they all be suffering at the grass roots, the administrators are mostly corrupt and they are broke.

it is quite frightening to hear at the moment that Supreme court doesn't care about the domestic game in india or the grass roots, none of the recommendation helps them and many of the sanction or recommendation actually hurts the game.
the more the lodha group speak the more you sense they just trying to get rid of BCCI administrators so some new members can get the job or dismantle BCCI and get a new body in.
not sure that really good for the game considering finances, players, domestic, ipl everything will suffer which in turn affect the world economy in cricket.

at least with BCCI you know what they bring to the table and generally want the game to prosper in india with the other group you have no idea about their motivations.

You really have to question their motives when they came up with stupid idea like banning adverts, is like they actually want cricket to die in india and for the rest of the world.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/conte ... 58725.html

"It is recommended that all existing contracts for international Test & One-Day matches be revised and new ones ensure that only breaks taken by both teams for drinks, lunch and tea will permit the broadcast to be interrupted with advertisements, as is the practice internationally

would really love to know which broadcaster doesn't show Adverts BBC, stopped showing cricket in 1998 or 1999 if you include world cup.
Australia adverts every over.
Asia every over
only sky shows adverts every 20 mins and that only because we bloody pay big bucks for the service.
people in India and Australia more or less get it for free although Star is a subscription channel in india but it is like Eurosports in the uk where only a cheap basic package is needed.
really hard to take a body seriously when they seriously wanted adverts banned.

[mikesiva]

Big Three take a hit
In the new model, the percentage shares of the BCCI and ECB in the total pie have gone down, while that of CA remains roughly the same. But a quick calculation will tell you why the BCCI is unhappy with these models. Not only is there no real formula behind them, but the Indian board takes the biggest hit from the 2014 model.

In that model, for gross ICC revenue of $2.5 billion, the BCCI stood to earn between 17.6-18% of the revenue (between $440-445 million*). In the new model, at the same gross revenue, it gets 10-10.2%. That is a reduction in potential earnings of between $180-190 million. The percentage share does increase should the ICC's revenue increase but it isn't a large spike: if the ICC gets $3 billion as revenue, the BCCI's share will be between 11.16-11.33%.

Under the 2014 model, the ECB stood to take 5.8-6%, whereas now its share is 4.8-5%, or between $20-30 million less. CA's share was between 4.4-4.6% in the last model and is more or less the same now. As with the BCCI, their shares will increase should the ICC's total gross revenue increase. That is the case with all boards.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 81598.html

About bloody time!