India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Burgey]

Man, Ikki multis are the worst.

 

[Maximas]

If the game of cricket "grows" at the expense of the test format then what has it really gained?

Not to mention that I really don't think the game could shed the test format completely and still grow, I know I'd walk away from it

 

[Spark]

Throwing away your existing supporter or customer base to chase a potential new one whose loyalty is far from established does not strike me as smart business strategy, in any event.

 

[Shri]

The BCCI is the world's wealthiest/powerful body largely due to the IPL

Nah goes back to the ODI boom in the mid 90s imo. Peaked in the late 90s and steadily went up from there. Plateaued again around 2005 and went up again after the 2007 T20 WC win and the 2008 IPL. Interest will go down again very soon.

 

[GIMH]

Throwing away your existing supporter or customer base to chase a potential new one whose loyalty is far from established does not strike me as smart business strategy, in any event.

Moe learned this on The Simpsons a few times iirc

 

[Energetic]

Cricket will just collapse I'm afraid. These people are doing everything to protect this "top 8". Apparently Bangladesh and Zimbabwe will lose their test status and drop into tier 2 and matches there will only be classified as first class despite the good progress my team has made since 2012. Many fans such as myself will give up on Cricket if these plans are put to test. Careers of Shakib, Mominul is basically going to get ruined.

 

[Daemon]

Throwing away your existing supporter or customer base to chase a potential new one whose loyalty is far from established does not strike me as smart business strategy, in any event.

tbf he's not suggesting it'll happen overnight or something.

 

[silentstriker]

The BCCI is the world's wealthiest/powerful body largely due to the IPL

The ECB refuses to provide NOCs due to conflicts with the CC and lambs to the slaughter early season tests

This marriage of convenience wont last IMO

Largely due to the IPL? No. They were that, way before. A billion people in a country where theirs is by far the most popular sport, but now with a growing middle class with money to spend that advertisers care about. The rise of the BCCI's power parallels the growth of the Indian economy after the early 1990s reforms.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

National pride is part of sport and you can't eliminate it. This is best exemplified in the Olympics.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Okay, if you also wish to believe the world is flat, that too is your perogative.


You are being disingeneous. You have said so yourself that SL-PAK series was pitched at a cheaper rate to SkyNZ than a 20/20 tournament involving 4-5 teams.
You are leaving the realms of a decent conversation and going into a fallacious set of argument, where you are going to challenge every assessment of a scenario demanding the level of evidence required by the Hague Criminal court for War Crimes cases, knowing fully well that it derails the entire conversation either due to the time required to satisfy every query of yours or traps me into publishing something that gets me and this website into a lot of trouble. All so that you can throw some facts you dont like out of the window and say a few standard cliches like 'if you cant provide proof, dont claim it as fact'.

Rather pathetic that in 14 pages your argument has descended from debate to making outlandish statements like the basis of our social contract is bunkum, everything including the existence of the sun needs to be evidenced, etc.
I guess your contribution towards my position has run its course of usefulness. G'day.

You're misrepresenting me totally. I don't need proof about the sun existing, but I'd like to see proof of your outlandish statements that "90% of Test cricket loses money". Whether the SL vs. Pakistan Tests were sold at a cheap rate is speculation on my part, but regardless of that, the deal would have been made on the basis of Sky NZ making some money from it, and if they can make money out of a small scale series with very few of fans of those teams living in NZ, then I seriously doubt that your "90% of Test cricket loses money" statement - that you have represented as fact - can be true in any way. You're hiding behind some non-disclosure rubbish when if Test cricket was making such large scale losses as you've suggested, then by now there would be something in the public domain from an official source that would support your argument. Even if your "90% of Test cricket makes a loss" (for the networks) was true, why does any network continue to broadcast Test cricket at all? It's a level of social responsibility you don't expect from big multinational companies. Your argument doesn't match with the seeming reality. And it is for that reason, that I would like to see some evidence to support your argument.

 

[Flem274*]

Back to the situation, NZC are attempting to get in bed with the big three.

Shift in power can be good for NZ cricket - Snedden - Cricket - NZ Herald News

New Zealand Cricket maintains a plan to shift the power over the world game to three countries can be a good thing for the Black Caps.

Boards from Australia, England and India have submitted to the ICC to have control of cricket, raising concerns high profile teams will no longer be bound to tour nations like New Zealand.

NZC spokesman Martin Snedden says teams will still comply with the Future Tours Programme, that obliges teams to play lesser nations.

"Saying we are prepared to be bound into the FTP schedule going forward and the ICC events schedule, which is the Cricket World Cups and that sort of thing, which gives a significant amount of increased certainty in the world of cricket.''

Snedden insists the Black Caps will be just as involved in the international game as they currently are.

"The outcomes of this are likely to provide us with certainty about what the Black Caps will be involved in and it will not be less than they are now.''

Snedden insists the Black Caps will at least be as involved in international cricket as they are right now.

Has he not heard about the enforced promotion-relegation system? This sounds just like the attempted smoke screen from the Taylor captaincy shenanigans.

Cricket: Diplomacy a new game for Snedden - Cricket - NZ Herald News

Martin Snedden will be hoping he's more Henry Kissinger than Neville Chamberlain as he negotiates financial and touring peace for New Zealand Cricket over the next three months.

His return to the NZC board last year has seen the former CEO thrust back into a role as the country's chief diplomat at the International Cricket Council's head table.

American Secretary of State Kissinger negotiated a detente with the Soviet Union during the Cold War; British Prime Minister Chamberlain declared "peace for our time" months before World War II.

Snedden simply has to conjure up a means by which New Zealand is guaranteed revenue and regular games against the world's best teams without appearing a lapdog to India, Australia and England. Those three countries are behind the latest plan to negotiate the ICC commercial rights and future tours from 2015-23.

There are concerns the result will favour cricket's big three fish at the expense of small fry.

Snedden is adamant NZC interests will be enhanced rather than injured.

"I've walked back into a different world from what I left in 2007. When I exited, there was no IPL [Indian Premier League] and the broadcasting rights were headed in India's direction but that has escalated over six years.

"Do we [NZC] have power at the ICC table? No, not a hell of a lot. Do we have the ability to influence and persuade? A little bit. The critical thing is to identify the things most important to us. That means ensuring the stability of our playing programme and revenue generation."

Snedden stressed it would be helpful if New Zealand performed well in the current series against India.

"That's important as a smaller nation. New Zealand can be a rollercoaster team to follow but we must take every opportunity to prove we're competitive."

The tabled ICC board paper suggested returning to bilateral series organised through respective boards. The scheme holds to the tenet that no one should be forced to host "uneconomic tours". Compliance would signal an end to the Future Tours Programme, a system invented by New Zealanders Sir John Anderson and former NZC chief executive Chris Doig to bridge the gap between cricket's haves and have-nots in the 1990s. India is not an FTP signatory.

New Zealand's current touring status is not expected to change much with rumours of two home and away tours to India, England and Australia across the proposed eight-year cycle. That is something NZC can sell to sponsors and commercial partners. However, there is the concern bilateral touring itineraries are subject to too much flexibility. The current Indian tour is an example: NZC conceded a third test to meet Indian demands.

Snedden wants to maintain Anderson and Doig's legacy.

"It's a fundamental outcome for us to be left with a playing programme which sees us play all the test-playing countries in a four-year cycle like in the FTP.

"Ratification of the existing schedule would be an excellent outcome. It's early stages but we've got a good chance of doing that. I need to stress there's nothing wrong with India, Australia and England working together to produce something for everyone.

"Don't jump to the conclusion what they're doing is not good for world cricket.

"Get this right and the FTP playing programme can be extended to 2023 and we can line it up with ICC events like the World Cup and World T20. That'd be a stable platform to work from."

The Indo-Australo-Anglo proposal will push for a greater revenue pie with rights buyers, meaning New Zealand could expect a bigger share, regardless of the percentage gleaned.

Snedden says fans have to understand India plays a much bigger role in world cricket than when the last deal was negotiated.

"Whatever the formula reached, India will take a greater slice. I think that's fair because they create 70-80 per cent of the revenue. That's not unusual in the world of sporting rights agreements. The Indian market's escalated out of proportion to everyone else since last time.

"We need to remove any doubt over their involvement in 2015-23 tours. If they're fully committed to the programme, that puts the ICC negotiating team in a strong position to exploit commercial rights."

The NZC board will discuss the proposal via phone conference on Wednesday.

What does it mean?
- NZC should gain more revenue as an International Cricket Council full member when the 2015-23 commercial rights deal is drawn up with prospective suitors.
- A need to negotiate strongly despite limited power at the ICC head table to avoid looking like an Indo-Anglo-Australo lapdog (a breed rarely sought)
- Two prospect home and away tours from India, Australia and England from 2015-23 (a similar scenario to now).
- Underlines the power India, Australia and England cricket boards wield for the medium-term future.

 

[straw man]

While your post may appeal to the idealistic child in all of us, it certainly makes the realistic 40-something brain in my head feel sardonic. I will spare you the lecture on how rose-tinted heavenly-hippe your post sounds......
(insert thousands more words here)

Like all ideologues, your response to opposition is to restate the same collection of bare assertions, only louder and at greater length. For those following at home, don’t be distracted by the fact that amongst the Muloghonto’s monotonous screed there is the occasional valid argument, factoid or assertion that is at least arguably true. Like any argument it must be evaluated not in part but in whole.

You write as if you have derived some great conclusion from first principles, when in fact your basis was clear from the initial post:

20/20 cricket, which is the future of cricket

test cricket is an epic fail of a format. 5 days of playing. Result not garanteed, even if weather does not interfere.

Most of the thousands of words since then merely collapse down to a circular reference that restates your original assumptions. You put into your model of how things work that test cricket is worthless and T20 is worthy, and amazing! You got the same conclusions out again.

Again like all ideologues, you state your opinions as facts and either fail to recognise or deliberately hide the hidden premises, assumptions and value statements in your own argument. A short collection of bare assertions and faith statements made by Muloghonto:

it is a proven fact that appealing to greed also appeals to quality

A reputation based on success in a league where the talent pool is (…) driven by financial incentive is the only reputation that matters in most team sports.

Your professional reputation is based on your competence in the workplace that is based on financial competition between you and those who would bid for your position.

The franchise model that leads to growth, excellence and financial sustainability.

Money *is* the be-all, end-all of any professional endavour (sic) .

The best form of cricket is the one that has the greatest consumption amongst the masses.

On the same benchmark, gravity is not 'science' either.

And at the macroscopic level that pertains to this thread, the effect of the economic theories relevant mostly behave remarkably like scientific laws

And you call me an idealist while YOU are the hard-headed realist? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The aforementioned possibly-reasonable points that you’ve posted all live within the domain of the cricket-as-a-product facet and the strategies associated with that, and this is neither here nor there as that is not the ultimate point of this discussion. Some of those points are completely separate topics that I’m not going to comment on. Others are logically dependent on the basis of this discussion, which is whether the ultimate purpose of cricket (and the ICC) is Money or Cricket.

Clearly I think the purpose of the ICC is cricket. Unlike you I can recognise that this is an arbitrary value that is neither right nor wrong, and the most that I or anyone could assert is that I’d much prefer to live in a world where other people share this value rather than one where this value is trashed. More specifically regarding the ICC though, I’d say it’s probably written into some tedious Core Values document that its purpose is indeed to further the interests of cricket as a game. Once you accept this initial value, the rest follows:

1. Test cricket is more demanding of the viewer, has greater depth and complexity and a much steeper learning curve. It is a premium product compared to T20 which is for mass-consumption. Viewed in isolation, this would mean you try to extract a premium price for test cricket. However it doesn’t make sense to view it in isolation.
2. The next layer is that test cricket is also the repository of nearly all the positive intangibles associated with the game – depth of passion, expertise, commitment, skills, history etc – and as previously mentioned these feed into the other formats. Any cost/benefit analysis of test cricket would need to include this (which is more or less impossible to quantify).
3. The top layer references back to the purpose of the ICC, which is Cricket. Test cricket is clearly the best representative of what makes cricket Cricket. Therefore it does hold a privileged position. And therefore it is perfectly fine (though not preferable) for test cricket to make a standalone loss provided that cricket as a whole is financially viable.

Now to your underlying value system, your initial assumptions that you continue to fail to recognise determined all your downstream conclusions. Numerous posters have pointed out that your idea that ‘the sole reason cricket exists is to make money’ an arbitrary value-judgement and that other value-judgements also exist, but you just responded by restating it again.

So, Cricket is money. I get it. In fact, everything is money. The worth of cricket, each of the formats of cricket and in fact everything else in the world is determined wholly and singularly by its monetary value. Money is the only End, and all other things are Means to that End. Nothing else has intrinsic worth, only money does.

Love; the smell of money. ***; a transaction (no doubt cash-negative in your case, and therefore off the agenda). Marriage; a financial deal. Children; had better have a goddam positive ROI. Other people; exist for the sole purpose of yielding money. History; began approximately 5000 years ago with the invention of money. The Natural World; worthless apart from where it can produce money. Spirituality; the caress of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Food; a necessary cost required to sustain oneself in order to maximise money earned over time. Only clever you understands that when two atoms collide and react it’s not chemistry but instead a free market exchange of goods. Those silly physicists trying to find a way to unify the four fundamental forces of the universe; the missing unifying force is MONEY. So obvious!

my fundamental concern about cricket, is to grow its popularity.
I simply care about the sport as it pertains to the mechanics of playing the sport far more than an intrinsic adherence to a particular format it is played in.
As a player and as a fan, seeing more people interested in the sport i am, is intrinsically rewarding in itself.

Wait… What? Are you saying cricket does have intrinsic value? As an end in itself? Have you gone soft in the head? You’ve asserted ad nauseum that the game exists (Means) to make money (End). Over and over and over again. This is contradictory to your dominant point so I’m going to assume the above was just a sop to try to make it look like you have the slightest care for cricket per se, though really I don’t know why you bothered.

Money is the reason for everything. Indeed as per your worldview life is but a linear program to optimise for the variable ‘Money’, so I don’t know WTF you’re doing posting on this forum when it’s surely a sub-optimal use of your time. You should be spending this time out working on improving your Life Score (bank balance). You are being Sub-Optimal! Time is a-wasting - other people may be overtaking you in the great race at this very moment while you dawdle. All your means must be directed towards that end and when you are eventually too old to continue to earn you may live out your days in a darkened room with no outside contact but the endless satisfaction of a screen on the wall showing your Life Score tick upwards – your Paradise.

By all means, you are free to live your life like that. Knock yourself out. It’s no skin off my nose. But like anyone with religious fervour please stay the hell away from projecting your dogma onto other people, or interfering with (destroying) anything I care about in the name of your ideology.

And please don’t bother calling me a communist idealist child again – that I object to you valuing money at 100% of life doesn’t mean that it’s a reasonable assumption by you that I value it at 0% - spare me your argument-by-extremes. I could reference my own current occupation and detail the ins and outs of money, capital, the profit motive and free markets, but that would be giving you more credence than you deserve. (As an aside Muloghonto, no one cares what you do to earn money or how old you are – you seem to think it improves your argument somehow; it does not. Though I will comment on the following)

Agreed but as an engineering man, i am driving towards the implications,not the procedures. It is what it is. … If you really think that engineers lack the full theoretical understanding of the laws they apply everyday- in a capacity that incurs far more personal responsibility than your equations on the chalkboard, then i really don't have anything to say to you- except that i doubt you know much about science or engineering. … Don't mistake our focus on the practical as ignorance towards the theoretical. It simply means an adherence to the principle of 'ends justify the means' applied to scientific context, not ignorance of the end or the means.

As a former engineer myself I found this pretty funny; that you think you are somehow entitled to special consideration as a logical and practical person despite the fact your writing shows you’ve swallowed a faith-based ideology whole. I also find it quite funny that despite your apparent exposure to engineering principles you haven’t managed to grasp that any understanding and management of a complex system is entirely contingent on the basis used, and it doesn’t matter how pretty, elegant or impressive-looking all the associated logic and conclusions are if you’ve used the wrong basis. The old garbage-in garbage-out principle.

I doubt I’ll find the time to respond to any further posts by you, though I expect you would just repeat the same ideological points yet again only louder and if so, please save me the trouble and just re-apply the points I’ve made to your next screed. Better yet, instead of replying to this post, please write your thoughts on a piece of paper and then post or email it addressed to your preferred deity. Or perhaps consider how your time could be put to better use contributing to the sole metric of your life’s success.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Like x one billion

 

[brockley]

So this fund that gets paid to every other test nation is it more than what it gets,and has ICC been saving a whole lot of cash that CA,BCCI and ECB want.

 

[Spark]

...

one of the great posts

really, he should have just left it at "I don't like tests" - that, at least, would have been intellectually honest

 

[benchmark00]

Muloghonto deserves at least the credit of writing out well written, thorough replies. I mean ****ed if I agree with him but at least he posts with more purpose than a lot of others

 

[Jono]

Wow incredible that this thread already get so many replies. Changes only just got announced/leaked.

Its too late to contribute now, cbf. But I think we all agree that cricket is now and will forever be one of the worst run sports. I have just learned to deal with it.

 

[straw man]

Muloghonto deserves at least the credit of writing out well written, thorough replies. I mean ****ed if I agree with him but at least he posts with more purpose than a lot of others

Muloghonto actually had some reasonable and maybe even interesting points regarding the business domain of T20, and these could have led to a good discussion if it were possible to separate them away from the odious worldview.

 

[Burgey]

I think it's disappointing that India and England are being so uppity and want a say in how the game is run. At least the other Boards seem to know their place.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

FMD, can't believe i missed out on this while i was at work. Feel free to continue mologhonto