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

[Richard]

These practices are indeed illegal in the UK, and also in the free-market heaven that is the US (where some of them are referred to as antitrust laws) and throughout Europe. I presume that other Commonwealth countries also have the same or similar laws (I'll be corrected on that if I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised if I am).

Reflect on why that might be, and you might find the answer to your own question.

It's because such things are considered by the majority in such places to be immoral - rightly or wrongly (and I'd not disagree that all your examples were indeed such a thing). Once again I come to this - there is much in cricket that doesn't always sit well legally. I happen to feel that the ubiquitous "greater good of the game" is indeed best served by destruction of competition. I don't think I'm alone in saying that anything which poses a danger to the "Test cricket is the pre-eminent game" mantra is, simply, bad for cricket.

BTW looking at the "logical extreme" of something, as you have, is rarely particularly helpful and sometimes, as here, positively misleading.

Well, TBH I think it is helpful, and well-leading.

 

[Richard]

Hardly. He would be signed by the ICL on the basis of his cricketing prowess. He would need to continue to play cricket, though, and most sportsmen don't want to play just 6-8 weeks a year, the great thing about being a sportsman is getting paid to do your hobby.

On the other hand, any sort of business could offer someone like Flintoff a career, especially in TV because he has the sort of personality that would make the drongos of England switch on.

You think most players wouldn't trade "the treadmill" of international cricket for having most of the year off?

I can tell you I've rather enjoyed having the last 9 months off, and if I could be paid for it I'd happily do this every year for the next 10.

I'd be very surprised if I was alone.

 

[Richard]

They didnt what in the case of Bond? I dont know what you mean. Are you saying he didnt have permission.

I'm saying they didn't want exclusive rights in the case of Bond. Where else has there been mention of a release clause? Everyone else, from what I've read, has simply had a contract to play in the ICL, no "and be released for..." anywhere.

As for you thinking they wouldnt play International cricket. Im afraid to say you dont know what you are talking about regarding ICL.

It has ben made an outlaw league but that was never its orginal intention. To suggest International players wouldnt be allowed to play International cricket by the ICL whilst signed up for ICL is plain wrong.

How can you be sure of this? How can you be remotely sure those behind the ICL wouldn't suddenly find the successful product being wanted to be expanded, to rake in more dollars, so as to be able to pay players even more? And to say that they had to put ICL first, rather than international cricket, if they wanted to earn these sums?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, but Richard I don't think working in an off licence is your hobby. I could be wrong, but from our conversations it's not the impression I've got.

I do a job that I absolutely love. The money's not great (it's good enough), the prospects are good though, but most importantly of all I go to work every single day and enjoy what I do. There are loads of times where I feel I need a break, because however much I enjoy it it's still tiring and I have a lot going on in my home life. But if my boss told me I was having a month off, I'd spent the first week playing with the kids and maybe doing a bit around the house, the second doing more of the same but by the third week I'd probably see if I could find a week to work in my profession freelance for a few quid, I imagine it would certainly be possible.

Now as much as I love my job, I would imagine most international cricketers enjoy theirs more. They do their hobby for a living, and they get the pride and honour of representing their country. Some would take the time off for sure, but most wouldn't. Not a chance.

 

[zaremba]

It's because such things are considered by the majority in such places to be immoral - rightly or wrongly (and I'd not disagree that all your examples were indeed such a thing). Once again I come to this - there is much in cricket that doesn't always sit well legally. I happen to feel that the ubiquitous "greater good of the game" is indeed best served by destruction of competition.

Well as I say I happen to view competition as being a healthy thing, for any number of reasons, and this is why anti-competitive practices are outlawed.

You have the honesty to admit that you would like to see the "destruction of competition". It is perhaps a pity that the ECB and BCCI aren't so frank. Of course, if they were, their positions would be untenable and would find themselves involved in, and of course losing, lawsuits not only in India but across the world.

I don't think I'm alone in saying that anything which poses a danger to the "Test cricket is the pre-eminent game" mantra is, simply, bad for cricket.

I struggle to see how a bitter feud between two Indian 20:20 leagues is, intrinsically, any threat to Test cricket. If the ICL is a threat, so is the IPL. The threat wouldn't be there if the BCCI didn't act as divisively as it has in its efforts to achieve "the destruction of competition".

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but Richard I don't think working in an off licence is your hobby. I could be wrong, but from our conversations it's not the impression I've got.

I do a job that I absolutely love. The money's not great (it's good enough), the prospects are good though, but most importantly of all I go to work every single day and enjoy what I do. There are loads of times where I feel I need a break, because however much I enjoy it it's still tiring and I have a lot going on in my home life. But if my boss told me I was having a month off, I'd spent the first week playing with the kids and maybe doing a bit around the house, the second doing more of the same but by the third week I'd probably see if I could find a week to work in my profession freelance for a few quid, I imagine it would certainly be possible.

Now as much as I love my job, I would imagine most international cricketers enjoy theirs more. They do their hobby for a living, and they get the pride and honour of representing their country. Some would take the time off for sure, but most wouldn't. Not a chance.

I wouldn't want to be sure of that. Not at all. You've heard the amount of disquiet in player ranks in recent times about over-fixturing? You must have done.

 

[Richard]

I struggle to see how a bitter feud between two Indian 20:20 leagues is, intrinsically, any threat to Test cricket. If the ICL is a threat, so is the IPL. The threat wouldn't be there if the BCCI didn't act as divisively as it has in its efforts to achieve "the destruction of competition".

I've never said there aren't dangers associated with the IPL, many of them. A feud between the IPL and ICL cannot even happen, though - it's a feud between the BCCI and the ICL. And it's not this that endangers Test cricket's pre-eminence - it's the ICL's presence. Test cricket is in more danger as long as the ICL exists than it would be should it not exist. Hence I view the prospect of the destruction of the ICL as a good thing.

 

[GIMH]

I wouldn't want to be sure of that. Not at all. You've heard the amount of disquiet in player ranks in recent times about over-fixturing? You must have done.

Yeah, of course, that doesn't mean they want 8/9 months off. More that they want a month off after three of playing, rather than 11-12 month schedules without more than a couple of weeks grace. Just the same as I wouldn't work all year round without getting a few week-long breaks in there.

 

[zaremba]

BTW looking at the "logical extreme" of something, as you have, is rarely particularly helpful and sometimes, as here, positively misleading.

Well, TBH I think it is helpful, and well-leading.

I don't want to give you a lengthy lecture on competition law (I can do if you like, but it would take a while and I'd have to charge) but you're very wrong. In short, the fact that the destruction of competitors may be a result of fair competition does not mean that using unfair means to destroy competitors, and thus to destroy competition, is justifiable.

 

[Goughy]

I'm saying they didn't want exclusive rights in the case of Bond. Where else has there been mention of a release clause? Everyone else, from what I've read, has simply had a contract to play in the ICL, no "and be released for..." anywhere.

How can you be sure of this? How can you be remotely sure those behind the ICL wouldn't suddenly find the successful product being wanted to be expanded, to rake in more dollars, so as to be able to pay players even more? And to say that they had to put ICL first, rather than international cricket, if they wanted to earn these sums?

Worst post. Pure speculation, bull**** and ignorance.

Just because you dont know something doesnt mean it doesnt exist. You may not have seen certain things about the contracts but I doubt you have even looked.

ICL contracts allow players to play Internationally (even now)

""Please don't call us rebels. The ICL contracts do not prevent us from playing for Bangladesh. We are as keen as anyone to play for our country." Habibul Bashar

It isnt ICL that is stopping players playing for their country it is BCCI. Not 1 player has been directly stopped from playing international cricket by an ICL contract.

You are simply wrong that ICL made it an ICL or country decision. That was made by others with a different agenda.

From the start the ICL has wanted to get legit (applying for ICC membership) saying International players wil be released.

I hate the fact that a player, for example Tim Bresnan, could go play a bit of cricket overseas and find themselves banned for no good reason. He isnt contracted by England but could lose his future career.

 

[Richard]

I don't want to give you a lengthy lecture on competition law (I can do if you like, but it would take a while and I'd have to charge) but you're very wrong. In short, the fact that the destruction of competitors may be a result of fair competition does not mean that using unfair means to destroy competitors, and thus to destroy competition, is justifiable.

I wouldn't dispute that for a second. I would, however, argue that sometimes the end means more to me than the means. I can recognise that immoral practices were engaged in (I've never once said the BCCI haven't been extremely underhand in the thing) and not condone that without being sorry about the end result.

At the end of the day, if the ICL is destroyed, I'm going to be sufficiently pleased about that to not going to moan about the tactics used, even if I do recognise the immorality of them.

 

[Richard]

From the start the ICL has wanted to get legit (applying for ICC membership) saying International players wil be released.

I see. Well that's something I've never read.

I'm afraid I have sufficiently little time for TV executives and moghuls to not believe in any long-term promises, though. In my experience, once they realise they're onto something that makes them money, they have little concern for anything else.

Again, though, if you can show me otherwise, please do. I'd quite appreciate it if you were a bit more polite about it, but you can't have everything.

 

[zaremba]

A feud between the IPL and ICL cannot even happen, though - it's a feud between the BCCI and the ICL.

Not sure what your point is. I'm aware that the BCCI runs the IPL. The IPL and the ICL are competing leagues.

And it's not this that endangers Test cricket's pre-eminence - it's the ICL's presence.

Nonsense. There's nothing intrinsically about the ICL which necessarily threatens Test cricket in any way at all. How people react to it might conceivably threaten Test cricket. It is necessary to recognise that the landscape is changing. 20:20 is here for the foreseeable future and it's where the money is. So why not let the ICL continue, compete against it properly and fairly, and work with it to ensure that, rather than being an "outlaw" league, it operates harmoniously with international cricket? It's not as though there's not a lot of dead wood that can't be chopped out from the international calendar to make a little room for it, such as interminable meaningless ODIs and the "Champions" Trophy in particular.

 

[Goughy]

I'd quite appreciate it if you were a bit more polite about it, but you can't have everything.

Fair enough though my point still stands

 

[Richard]

Not sure what your point is. I'm aware that the BCCI runs the IPL. The IPL and the ICL are competing leagues.

The IPL is but one of the BCCI's pieces of cricket. The ICL is the exclusive cricket of Zee TV. It's not just the IPL that competes against the ICL, but a group of competitions: the IPL, Indian Test, ODI and other domestic cricket.

Nonsense. There's nothing intrinsically about the ICL which necessarily threatens Test cricket in any way at all. How people react to it might conceivably threaten Test cricket. It is necessary to recognise that the landscape is changing. 20:20 is here for the foreseeable future and it's where the money is. So why not let the ICL continue, compete against it properly and fairly, and work with it to ensure that, rather than being an "outlaw" league, it operates harmoniously with international cricket? It's not as though there's not a lot of dead wood that can't be chopped out from the international calendar, such as interminable meaningless ODIs and the "Champions" Trophy in particular.

As I say above - I don't have sufficient trust in private-entity cricket leagues to believe this possible. I believe that come a certain point, those behind the ICL will start to want more, and that Test cricket would be damaged by this. I think no ICL at all would be a far better option for Test cricket, which isn't for mine comparable to a high-street chain.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough though my point still stands

It certainly does - you're quite right that there's stuff I hadn't looked-up about the ICL. I'd only ever heard of international-cricket-release-clauses in Bond's case - it appears they are in fact present far more widely. This was indeed lack of full knowledge on my part.

 

[zaremba]

The IPL is but one of the BCCI's pieces of cricket. The ICL is the exclusive cricket of Zee TV. It's not just the IPL that competes against the ICL, but a group of competitions: the IPL, Indian Test, ODI and other domestic cricket.

I still don't think I understand what point you're making though?

 

[Goughy]

Just a few more quotes on the myth of ICL vs Country

Kapil Dev
"“I hope Bangladesh will not ban those players who have come to us. We want them to play for their country and come to us only in their free time.”

ICC spokesman James Fitzgerald on Niall O'Brien being nominated for ICC Associate Player of the Year
"“It was understood that he wouldn’t renew his ICL contract after that particular tournament. Had he still been with them, it might have been a different matter. At the time of signing the contract, he didn’t know that he ran the risk of not being picked by Ireland. He didn’t play in the ICL afterwards.”

And Dev again in 2007 at the start
"Our objective is for players to come and play and then carry on playing international cricket. We don’t want to upset international cricket. Kevin Pietersen didn’t want to play, fine, and I wouldn’t want to see him not allowed to play for England any more. We want players to serve their country first. We want to produce cricketers. Why would we stop them? I say ‘go man, play for your country and live the life’. If he has a dream we wouldn’t want to stop that dream. But when he comes back then play with us. "

ICL’s business head Himanshu Mody on applying for ICC recognition
We had applied for recognition in April, but till now nothing concrete has come out. They are acting in a tardy manner. If we don’t hear anything from them in 14 days we will pursue the matter again.”

To reiterate. ICC/BCCI taking players away from International cricket by banning them. ICL contracts do not.

 

[silentstriker]

I read that a three-year ICL contract pays $200k overall, which is roughly £100k. Your centrally contracted player without bonuses gets somewhere in the £100k-£150k a year, I believe. As captain Pietersen may earn up to £400-500k, if the side is successful. I could be wrong with these figures, particularly the KP one but I believe the basic contract one to be accurate.

Well, the ICL contract isn't a standard one, it depends on what they give you. Bond earns £500k/year in the ICL.

 

[silentstriker]

The problem that the BCCI has comes down to whether it can allow someone else to take the money from cricket into a for-profit venture instead of a non-profit organization that ploughs the money back into the game.

Where it falls apart is that BCCI is nowhere near an orgnization that does this, so it's one evil empire vs. another. The difference is, without the millions, who is going to look after FC cricket. It won't be the ICL.