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

[NZTailender]

The BCCI is going about trying to destroy the ICL in the wrong way. They won't kill it by effectively banning players playing Test, ODI or T20I for their country.

If they want to get rid of it completely, they should do it the old fashioned way - by competing. Sporting competitions die off from lack of viewship which in turn results in lack of sponsorship. If people are watching the IPL and not the ICL, the ICL will die.
Simply put, hold the IPL at the same time, so there are two matches to choose from on the TV. Which do you pick? The one full of current big named stars or the one with retired has beens and no name domestic cricketers? Quality will always win out.

 

[honestbharani]

The BCCI is going about trying to destroy the ICL in the wrong way. They won't kill it by effectively banning players playing Test, ODI or T20I for their country.

If they want to get rid of it completely, they should do it the old fashioned way - by competing. Sporting competitions die off from lack of viewship which in turn results in lack of sponsorship. If people are watching the IPL and not the ICL, the ICL will die.
Simply put, hold the IPL at the same time, so there are two matches to choose from on the TV. Which do you pick? The one full of current big named stars or the one with retired has beens and no name domestic cricketers? Quality will always win out.

yep.. unfortunately, BCCI don't understand the words "legal and moral"... Which they have in common with most people, boards and nations who wield that sort of power...

 

[pup11]

The BCCI is going about trying to destroy the ICL in the wrong way. They won't kill it by effectively banning players playing Test, ODI or T20I for their country.

If they want to get rid of it completely, they should do it the old fashioned way - by competing. Sporting competitions die off from lack of viewship which in turn results in lack of sponsorship. If people are watching the IPL and not the ICL, the ICL will die.
Simply put, hold the IPL at the same time, so there are two matches to choose from on the TV. Which do you pick? The one full of current big named stars or the one with retired has beens and no name domestic cricketers? Quality will always win out.

As far as i know even now when the IPL and ICL aren't taking place at the same time not many people are watching ICL games, but they still somehow have the courage to expand ICL further.

I think ICL is playing the patient game here, they know they can't compete with IPL atm, but they are hoping player pressure would eventually lead to BCCI and ICC to bow down.

 

[Indipper]

As Goughy said, ICL wouldn't dream of banning its players from playing international cricket. Why should they, it devalues them for their purposes. But in general I have to agree with Richard. The ICL (and the IPL as well to some degree) bring a change in cricket's employment structure, from the boards to commercial entities. And while that wouldn't be a problem as such, I don't think the power shift will do the international game a lot of good. Everyone has to look out for their interests and it is rather naive to use words like moral in that context. It doesn't make any national board morally superior that it's in their best interest to keep the national teams going just as it doesn't make players morally superior who want double helpings from ICL and their home board.

 

[Furball]

It amazes me that Richard can be so veheminently against the ICL, yet fail to recognise the very real threat posed to the international game by the BCCI and the IPL, a threat equal to that of the ICL.

If the IPL is a massive commercial success, then don't you think the franchise owners would want 2 competitions in a calendar year? Don't you think players like Dhoni and Symonds (the two biggest earners in the IPL) would want to earn $1.5m and $1.35m respectively for each block of 6 week's work?

Factor in the disdain that the BCCI has for the Future Tours Programme, which is understandable as it affects their bottom line - there's simply more money to be made out of a series with Australia or Pakistan than a tour of the West Indies or New Zealand. Make no mistake, if the BCCI could get away with only touring and hosting Pakistan, Australia, and at a push, England, then they would. The BCCI should, after all, be looking after the BCCI. If the IPL proves to be a massive money earner for the BCCI, then what's to stop them abandoning the smaller nations all together and having IPL tournaments instead of some piddling little tour to New Zealand? Factor in the massive sums of money the players are getting paid, and it becomes even more threatening.

I simply cannot fathom how someone can be pro IPL and anti ICL. Either you accept both leagues in legitimate competition, with all the risks that entails to international cricket, or you want both destroyed.

 

[silentstriker]

To play in the IPL a player must have permission from his board. And both IPL and ICL allow players to miss games for any international committments.

 

[Richard]

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

That it's often painted as an IPL-vs-ICL issue, and doing that can lead to quite important misunderstandings. A good many people seem to be under the impression that as long as the IPL is drawing bigger audiences than the ICL, the ICL "loses". But the ICL too is drawing considerable audiences, and as long as it continues to do this it presents a threat to international (and domestic) cricket.

 

[Richard]

The BCCI is going about trying to destroy the ICL in the wrong way. They won't kill it by effectively banning players playing Test, ODI or T20I for their country.

If they want to get rid of it completely, they should do it the old fashioned way - by competing. Sporting competitions die off from lack of viewship which in turn results in lack of sponsorship. If people are watching the IPL and not the ICL, the ICL will die.
Simply put, hold the IPL at the same time, so there are two matches to choose from on the TV. Which do you pick? The one full of current big named stars or the one with retired has beens and no name domestic cricketers? Quality will always win out.

That'd present its own difficulties though. The IPL is already causing problems to the international schedule - not problems that can't be sorted-out with a bit of work from those involved, but problems that make the schedule relatively inflexible.

If you're deliberately trying to out-ICL the ICL as well, that'll make life even more difficult. It might indeed be a good idea, but I'm not sure it's workable.

 

[Richard]

It amazes me that Richard can be so veheminently against the ICL, yet fail to recognise the very real threat posed to the international game by the BCCI and the IPL, a threat equal to that of the ICL.

It amazes me that anyone can misinterpret my position badly enough to think that I fail to recognise the dangers posed by the IPL, or that I'm remotely pro-BCCI.

I simply cannot fathom how someone can be pro IPL and anti ICL. Either you accept both leagues in legitimate competition, with all the risks that entails to international cricket, or you want both destroyed.

I simply cannot fathom how anyone can think I'm "pro-IPL". However the ICL unquestionably poses risks the IPL does not. Any form of private competition is always dangerous beyond anything organised by official cricket boards. That doesn't make the IPL a wonderous thing about which there is nothing wrong (and I don't like Twenty20 at all anyway so I've no interest whatsoever in it) but one can be vehemently anti-ICL without it impacting in any way on what they think of the IPL.

 

[Furball]

The IPL poses similar risks - see Sri Lanka's tour of England next year.

 

[GIMH]

It amazes me that anyone can misinterpret my position badly enough to think that I fail to recognise the dangers posed by the IPL, or that I'm remotely pro-BCCI.

I simply cannot fathom how anyone can think I'm "pro-IPL". However the ICL unquestionably poses risks the IPL does not. Any form of private competition is always dangerous beyond anything organised by official cricket boards. That doesn't make the IPL a wonderous thing about which there is nothing wrong (and I don't like Twenty20 at all anyway so I've no interest whatsoever in it) but one can be vehemently anti-ICL without it impacting in any way on what they think of the IPL.

In my opinion, if you don't want to see the IPL destroyed then this makes you pro-IPL

Richard, as an aside but I've been meaning to tell you this for about a week, Andre recently posted in the Australia in India thread. Don't think you've seen it, and Smith predicted that you would be excited by this, guess you must have stated in the past that you missed the guy posting here or whatever, well anyway thought I'd let you know...

 

[Richard]

The IPL poses similar risks - see Sri Lanka's tour of England next year.

No, it poses risks. To compare the ICL and the IPL is just ignorant. Apart from the fact they're Twenty20 competitions with teams with fancy names and massive wage-packets for the players, they've little in common.

 

[Richard]

In my opinion, if you don't want to see the IPL destroyed then this makes you pro-IPL

I don't think the IPL is something along the lines of the ICL though - there is room for middle-ground there.

Richard, as an aside but I've been meaning to tell you this for about a week, Andre recently posted in the Australia in India thread. Don't think you've seen it, and Smith predicted that you would be excited by this, guess you must have stated in the past that you missed the guy posting here or whatever, well anyway thought I'd let you know...

 

[zaremba]

To compare the ICL and the IPL is just ignorant. Apart from the fact they're Twenty20 competitions with teams with fancy names and massive wage-packets for the players, they've little in common.

Ah, Richard, you're just trying to provoke us all into the same ICL frenzy that we enjoyed/endured last night. I won't bite.

(but of course they're comparable )

 

[Sanz]

So IPL isn't threatening traditional cricket ? So why is the SriLankan President meeting the Lankan National players ?

Let me guess the following news report must be a figment of some journo's imagination :-

"...Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa is expected to meet Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) officials and the players, who are refusing to tour England for a Test series due to clash of dates with the cash-rich Indian Premier League...."

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Story...adline=Lankan+President+to+meet+SLC+officials

 

[Sanz]

Also, it is just sad to see the hypocrisy on display in the ICL Vs. IPL debate both by the administrators and fans.

http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2008/09/21/spo03.asp

Lankans already committed

To say that it is in such a background from which we in Sri Lanka find ourselves looking at the current impasse facing the Mahela Jayawardene led Sri Lanka IPL players, who amount to more than a handful considering the cream of our cricket who have reportedly committed themselves to the billion dollar Indian Premier League (IPL) and the local administrative arm - Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC). That it’s very controversy revolves around the IPL where its next fixture for its Sri Lankan IPL players early next year happens to clash with an intended Sri Lanka tour to England around the same time in April-May which SLC Interim Committee Chairman Arjuna Ranatunga is adamant must be honoured, come what may, threatens the very existence of the country’s cricket is no understatement.
What with the cricketers threatening retirement if their wish to honour their contract with the IPL is not permitted by SLC. to which the equally adamant stance adopted by Ranatunga, a former iron man of cricket, who no one can deny to whom this country owes a great lot for what our cricket is today, is that a handful of players cannot dictate terms and that the England tour must be honoured. For, country comes first.
In this running row which has caused much comments from so many quarters, where almost roundly the sympathy of the local media has stayed with the cricketers, to be honest, there are two ways of looking at it. From one side, the players are looking perhaps not only at the monetary windfall coming their way, but also at the prospect of playing in an extravaganza local as it may be - imported players, have to represent Indian domestic clubs run by billionaires mainly from the Hindi film industry including heartthrob Sharukh Khan - where the best in the world assemble to showcase their talents.
Having said that, the IPL is also a window for even the lesser known, still striving to make a name for himself to not only play first hand and impress and seal a future with his country - the best example from that is that of young Shaun Marsh who made the inaugural IPL the platform to walk into the Australian team, but also earn a fortune.
In that scenario certainly, the IPL has from its very infancy worked itself up to be the high noon of world cricket, judging by the tremendous attraction it has generated. Not only contemporary leading players from almost every cricket playing country have raised their hands to play in the IPL, but even retired players like Australians Shane Warne, Glen McGrath, Stephen Flemming from New Zealand and Shaun Pollock from South Africa among others have joined the parade.

 

[Richard]

So IPL isn't threatening traditional cricket ? So why is the SriLankan President meeting the Lankan National players ?

Let me guess the following news report must be a figment of some journo's imagination :-

"...Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa is expected to meet Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) officials and the players, who are refusing to tour England for a Test series due to clash of dates with the cash-rich Indian Premier League...."

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Story...adline=Lankan+President+to+meet+SLC+officials

What's the point posting that? It was discussed about 3 months ago.

Incidentally, as was said then - SLC can hardly blame players for opting for the IPL instead of them if they aren't even getting their SLC-paid wages, can they?

 

[Flem274*]

Haha, go Ranatunga.

Would be interesting if Bangladesh, England and NZ formed a "**** the BCCI" alliance and picked ICL players just for fun. If funding was cut for these countires then the mud would stick and could backfire massively on the BCCI.

Theres's a passage in Orwells 1984 that would go beautifully with the current political situation in world cricket iirc, I must find it later.

 

[Richard]

Haha, go Ranatunga.

Would be interesting if Bangladesh, England and NZ formed a "**** the BCCI" alliance and picked ICL players just for fun.

This talk of "alliances" is wearing thin fast.

 

[pup11]

BCCI thinks that they are such a smart-arse organisation that they can do virtually make any mistake and get away with it, without facing its consequences, IPL came into existence only to nip ICL in its bud (because BCCI saw ICL as a potetial danger to their standing in India), but virtually all they have done is give players not one, but two new avenues to make (huge) financial gains from.

Now obviously since IPL is backed by BCCI they only see it as a huge boon for the game, but other such leauges and tournaments like them have always been considered bad for the game by them, so they are just making a laughing stock out of themselves by showing such double standards on this issue.

It won't be long before boards around the world realise that through IPL only BCCI and the participating players are making money, and there isn't much in it for them and on top of that they are also losing their players to leauges like this, then surely they would together take a stand against the BCCI, its only a matter of time.