Sri Lanka Cricket to Lift it's Ban on ICL Players

[GIMH]

That's simply not true. Even if you accept what Gelman says about the IPL being based on the ICL and being brought about as a direct result of it, which I don't for a minute, I don't think that could be organised in the space of a month or two, Graeme Wright talked about the idea something like the IPL and Champions League in cricket the best part of a decade ago, before 20-over cricket was even dubbed Twenty20 and played at A-list level. It was always going to happen; Zee just got there a tiny while before any cricket boards did.

You honestly think that the IPL would have happened this spring if the ICL hadn't??

 

[zaremba]

You honestly think that the IPL would have happened this spring if the ICL hadn't??

Seems a remarkable coincidence doesn't it?

Mind you, it might have happened eventually, especially given India's success in the World 20-20.

 

[Richard]

Quite frankly, I don't see why other boards should give a **** whether their players are playing in unauthorised competitions unless they wish for them to be resting or if these competitions pose higher risks of injury for any reason.

I want to see the ECB take the BCCI on this, I am dying for them to pick Chris Read just to piss the BCCI off. Let's see them stop England from touring, and refuse to tour here, see how that works for them, I'm sure that would be a great idea.

Fortunately that won't happen, as it'd be an absolutely mad thing. While it's true the BCCI need the ECB, the reverse is true to a far greater extent. It'd be plain madness to jeapardise a profitable relationship for the sake of doing something that does neither party any good.

Because yes, it is in the ECB's and every other cricket board's best interests, in the long-term, to try to destroy the ICL. There might be few consequences in the short-term, but as WSC showed, private competitions which players who should be \ are playing in proper international cricket can never be safe. There is always a potential avenue for disaster. You say "boards just have to make sure their players get release clauses in their contracts"... there is no way to do this. You seem to have far more trust in the amount cricketers love playing for their country than it's wise to do. Any number would happily forsake this for the vast sums ICLs pay. All cricket boards must stand united against the idea of their players playing in private competitions, because there is no guaranteed safe way of that happening. The only way to guarantee we always have the best players putting international cricket first is to destroy private massive-paycheque leagues.

 

[Richard]

You honestly think that the IPL would have happened this spring if the ICL hadn't??

If it didn't happen this spring (and it's very possible it would, yes - I repeat, you can't organise such a thing in the space of 6 or 8 weeks) it'd have happened before very long.

 

[Goughy]

Regarding all this.

I have no issue with BCCI not allowing Indian ICL players to play for India. Basically banning them. That makes sense and has good logic. The Indian team basically represents BCCI.

Its the banning of players from other nations that is wrong. Its got little to do with anyone else who someone is employed by.

If players are available for International fixtures (which it seems ICL would be better than than IPL) then who a player plays for is of no consequence.

For a long time players have played for private concerns in off seasons. As long as they fulfil their obligations to their home boards (ie available when picked) then there should be no problem.

I understand India taking action to protect its own interests but nations like NZ, Pak and Bang are hurting for no good reason.

 

[Richard]

The BCCI's attempts to influence other teams' selections are utterly inappropriate and any foreign Board that stands up to them should be applauded. The more Boards that do so, the weaker the BCCI's position will be. I can't begin to understand why some people - ok then, one person - on this site advocates capitulation, even to the extent of actively wishing that Counties should not pick ICL players. Completely bizarre.

I don't advocate capitulation. I advocate standing united. I believe the BCCI stance on the ICL is the correct one, and that other national boards must take a similar stance, to the maximum extent they are legally empowered to do, if the game is to stand its strongest chance.

I believe that any board which does not take a complete anti-ICL stance is putting short-term gain (eg, we've got Shane Bond for a year longer than we otherwise might have) over long-term safety and stability (what good is it if NZ have Bond now if they're losing 10 players in 4 years' time because the ICL has been left to get so much clout that no player is ever going to turn down their offers nor seek release clauses that the ICL have no need to offer). And if weaker boards are forced by the BCCI into taking the stance I believe right, I'm happier than I would be if they didn't and the ICL danger grew.

I'd be naive if I thought all cricket boards were sensible enough to realise without any BCCI nudging that the anti-ICL stance was the best one. But I do think some (eg the ECB) have indeed done this.

 

[zaremba]

Fortunately that won't happen, as it'd be an absolutely mad thing. While it's true the BCCI need the ECB, the reverse is true to a far greater extent. It'd be plain madness to jeapardise a profitable relationship for the sake of doing something that does neither party any good.

Because yes, it is in the ECB's and every other cricket board's best interests, in the long-term, to try to destroy the ICL. There might be few consequences in the short-term, but as WSC showed, private competitions which players who should be \ are playing in proper international cricket can never be safe. There is always a potential avenue for disaster. You say "boards just have to make sure their players get release clauses in their contracts"... there is no way to do this. You seem to have far more trust in the amount cricketers love playing for their country than it's wise to do. Any number would happily forsake this for the vast sums ICLs pay. All cricket boards must stand united against the idea of their players playing in private competitions, because there is no guaranteed safe way of that happening. The only way to guarantee we always have the best players putting international cricket first is to destroy private massive-paycheque leagues.

You continue to overlook or ignore the central point which is that the right way to deal with competition isn't to engage in anti-competitive practices.

Even without the opposition of the BCCI, the ICL would eventually fail for the simple reason that 20:20 isn't a good enough game to support it. The bubble will burst.

And the example of WSC is an interesting one. You might see it as having been a destablising influence, but it had profound and positive long-term effects.

 

[GIMH]

Fortunately that won't happen, as it'd be an absolutely mad thing. While it's true the BCCI need the ECB, the reverse is true to a far greater extent. It'd be plain madness to jeapardise a profitable relationship for the sake of doing something that does neither party any good.

Because yes, it is in the ECB's and every other cricket board's best interests, in the long-term, to try to destroy the ICL. There might be few consequences in the short-term, but as WSC showed, private competitions which players who should be \ are playing in proper international cricket can never be safe. There is always a potential avenue for disaster. You say "boards just have to make sure their players get release clauses in their contracts"... there is no way to do this. You seem to have far more trust in the amount cricketers love playing for their country than it's wise to do. Any number would happily forsake this for the vast sums ICLs pay. All cricket boards must stand united against the idea of their players playing in private competitions, because there is no guaranteed safe way of that happening. The only way to guarantee we always have the best players putting international cricket first is to destroy private massive-paycheque leagues.

If boards have players contracted then they can refuse those players permission to sign for offseason events etc if the contracts with the other organisations don't include release clauses. Just in the same way that Australia can prevent Ponting from playing in the IPL any time they want. If players don't want these clauses, well that's up to them. The Chris Reads and Paul Nixons of this world may have played international cricket but it's a short career and they won't have earned a fortune, certainly not enough to rest on their laurels. I know you don't begrudge these guys their payday, and neither do I, and there shouldn't be a situation where what they do in the offseason affects what happens to their club in the normal season. It has got nothing to do with anything.

 

[Richard]

For a long time players have played for private concerns in off seasons. As long as they fulfil their obligations to their home boards (ie available when picked) then there should be no problem.

How many of these private concerns have paid players 10 times their "in-season" wage for a few weeks' work?

I'd bet none. Hence none present the threat the ICL presents, and no national board needs to take any action against them. The only precedent to the ICL is WSC - and that completely gutted the international game for 2 years. To avoid a repeat of WSC is in the best interests of every single cricket board.

 

[Richard]

You continue to overlook or ignore the central point which is that the right way to deal with competition isn't to engage in anti-competitive practices.

Why not?

Even without the opposition of the BCCI, the ICL would eventually fail for the simple reason that 20:20 isn't a good enough game to support it. The bubble will burst.

That's a very dangerous assumption. It took at least 20 years for the ODI "bubble" to "burst", if that is you believe (and there's considerable evidence to the contrary) that it has. There's no way, if the ICL were to be left to its own devices, that it'd be seeing audiences declining to negligable within 3 years.

And the example of WSC is an interesting one. You might see it as having been a destablising influence, but it had profound and positive long-term effects.

In the improvement of TV coverage? Yes it did. But the positive effect on the game itself was limited to higher wages for the players.

 

[GIMH]

I don't advocate capitulation. I advocate standing united. I believe the BCCI stance on the ICL is the correct one, and that other national boards must take a similar stance, to the maximum extent they are legally empowered to do, if the game is to stand its strongest chance.

I believe that any board which does not take a complete anti-ICL stance is putting short-term gain (eg, we've got Shane Bond for a year longer than we otherwise might have) over long-term safety and stability (what good is it if NZ have Bond now if they're losing 10 players in 4 years' time because the ICL has been left to get so much clout that no player is ever going to turn down their offers nor seek release clauses that the ICL have no need to offer). And if weaker boards are forced by the BCCI into taking the stance I believe right, I'm happier than I would be if they didn't and the ICL danger grew.

I'd be naive if I thought all cricket boards were sensible enough to realise without any BCCI nudging that the anti-ICL stance was the best one. But I do think some (eg the ECB) have indeed done this.

Can't help but thinking that this is naive. The ICL need release clauses if they want to attract stars just as much as the IPL does - if it wants to attract that calibre of player.

I would have no problem if James Anderson or Ryan Sidebottom wanted to go and play a bit of ICL as long as they continued to play in England colours. It makes approximately no difference to me whether they play ICL, IPL or Major League Baseball. England players are well paid and the ICL's money would probably not top what Anderson & Sidebottom can earn from continuing to play for England.

I accept that not all boards are in this position, nor are they paying these wages. All the more reason for the ICL to exist, because your Bangladeshis and West Indians might not be on very good money and nor are they wanted by the IPL's megabucks machine. Let them earn some more, they have families to look after just like me, so let them earn their extra cash and let them continue to play for their countries.

And yeah, you can call me pro-ICL now if you want, I have become it over the past few days

 

[zaremba]

I'd be naive if I thought all cricket boards were sensible enough to realise without any BCCI nudging that the anti-ICL stance was the best one. But I do think some (eg the ECB) have indeed done this.

Do you really believe that the ECB's position is independently reached without BCCI nudging? The ECB has no business taking any position on the internal affairs of another country and unless heavily nudged they would never have dreamt even of expressing a view.

The ECB's public pronouncements are very carefully worded. They will have been advised by their lawyers that they must give the correct reasons for opposing the ICL when speaking publicly. That means not saying "We oppose the ICL because we want to keep in with the BCCI" (which is patently the real reason) but saying, instead, "We oppose the ICL because it undermines the anti-doping regime in world cricket" etc (which is the reason they'd be forced to rely on when they are sued by players for restraint of trade).

 

[GIMH]

How many of these private concerns have paid players 10 times their "in-season" wage for a few weeks' work?

I'd bet none. .

So what?

 

[Richard]

If boards have players contracted then they can refuse those players permission to sign for offseason events etc if the contracts with the other organisations don't include release clauses. Just in the same way that Australia can prevent Ponting from playing in the IPL any time they want. If players don't want these clauses, well that's up to them. The Chris Reads and Paul Nixons of this world may have played international cricket but it's a short career and they won't have earned a fortune, certainly not enough to rest on their laurels. I know you don't begrudge these guys their payday, and neither do I, and there shouldn't be a situation where what they do in the offseason affects what happens to their club in the normal season. It has got nothing to do with anything.

I don't begrudge any player signing when the opportunity is there. I simply feel that everyone is far better served if the opportunity isn't there.

No national board gives players contracts for any longer than 1 year. When Ricky Ponting's contract expires, as it does every year, he could quite easily go and play in the ICL if he wanted and CA could do sod-all about it. Ditto Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, Stuart Clark and many besides. And if the ICL was able to offer them a big enough wage, you'd be a fool if you thought they wouldn't eventually take it.

You can only include contractual clauses stopping players from signing for such-and-such for a very short time.

 

[Richard]

Can't help but thinking that this is naive. The ICL need release clauses if they want to attract stars just as much as the IPL does - if it wants to attract that calibre of player.

It doesn't though. If it can offer enough money, players will cease to care whether they can play for their country or not. They'll be more than happy to earn the megabucks. As I said earlier - I think you overestimate the love of international cricket that players have. WSC shows that this is never something that can be relied upon.

 

[Richard]

Do you really believe that the ECB's position is independently reached without BCCI nudging? The ECB has no business taking any position on the internal affairs of another country and unless heavily nudged they would never have dreamt even of expressing a view.

The ECB's public pronouncements are very carefully worded. They will have been advised by their lawyers that they must give the correct reasons for opposing the ICL when speaking publicly. That means not saying "We oppose the ICL because we want to keep in with the BCCI" (which is patently the real reason) but saying, instead, "We oppose the ICL because it undermines the anti-doping regime in world cricket" etc (which is the reason they'd be forced to rely on when they are sued by players for restraint of trade).

The real reason should be "we oppose the ICL because we realise that it could potentially take all our players from us, and there'd be sod-all we could do about it".

Because the ECB will never be able to offer the comforts the ICL does. Therefore it's in their best interests to stand with the BCCI and fight the ICL. The ICL presents as much of a danger to the ECB as the BCCI.

 

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by zaremba
You continue to overlook or ignore the central point which is that the right way to deal with competition isn't to engage in anti-competitive practices.

Why not?

Because it's illegal and immoral. Apart from those two tiny details, I'm with you all the way - it's a great idea.

In the improvement of TV coverage? Yes it did. But the positive effect on the game itself was limited to higher wages for the players.

So apart from the fair wages for players, and the improved TV coverage for viewers, what did the Romans ever do for us?

 

[Richard]

So what?

So there's no danger of them earning the players' preference. No-one is going to choose a little Lashings-style club over international cricket, because international cricket's rewards are far greater.

The same is not true of the ICL.

 

[zaremba]

The real reason should be "we oppose the ICL because we realise that it could potentially take all our players from us, and there'd be sod-all we could do about it".

Because the ECB will never be able to offer the comforts the ICL does.

So do you think that the ECB can compete with the IPL any more than with the ICL?

 

[Richard]

Because it's illegal and immoral. Apart from those two tiny details, I'm with you all the way - it's a great idea.

Why is it immoral? Who is ever not prepared to take custom from one to earn it for themselves? It's the basis of the whole retail industry, for one thing.

So apart from the fair wages for players, and the improved TV coverage for viewers, what did the Romans ever do for us?

Was it worth it for 2 years of crap and the several other long-term damages that happened?

Not for mine.