India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Adders]

But for this to work, realistically, for everyone, you cant have the big three relegated.

Yes, financially it's a problem if any of them go down but in the interest of integrity it just can't be the case. As Nasser says it makes a mockery of the system from the outset.

England, Australia and India may well have the cash but none of them have a team that you can say categorically is in the top 3 going around and will be for the next few years. Wasn't that long ago that each one of them was at one point languishing down at 5th in the rankings. England couldn't in either a home or away series beat NZ.........how can anyone say that England should be a protected side??

What would the financial ramifications be if Brazil bombs out in the first round of the FIFA WC later this year?? They aren't protected (beyond automatic qualification) Having the top draw team/player bomb is a risk that any sporting competition has to contend with.

Instead of this arrogant demand these so called powerhouses should spend their cash on making sure their teams are good enough to stay in the top tier on merit.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

England couldn't in either a home or away series beat NZ.........how can anyone say that England should be a protected side??.

They actually beat us 2-0 (although we should have got a lot closer at Lords after Southee's 10fer, and obviously a couple of dropped catches and Prior's luck stopped us winning the series in NZ).


Apart from being a fan of democracy, and the fact that NZ might only 3 tests against India, England and Australia every 10 years (and thus kill NZ cricket), the other thing that annoys me about this is that test cricket is actually quite competitive now. This is why I believe if there are two tiers, the solution is to have crossover series between the tiers and allow teams from the evil triumvirate to be demoted.

I'd also love to see a 'Ranfurly Shield challenge idea' in which a team has a major trophy which is defended in the final test of a home test series (be that a one-test, 2/3/4/5 test series). It would stop dead rubbers if the holders had already won the series and would give minor teams the chance for silverware. Imagine for instance that Pakistan plays a test series in South Africa and wins the final test (and the challenge trophy) before losing it in a one-off Dubai/Sharjah test to Ireland or Afghanistan. How good would that be?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Pakistani players won't be allowed to play IPL. So less cricket because it might not be profitable to play a bilateral series with them and no IPL for their players to make money. That's very unfair.

 

[Daemon]

There's no other game I want to watch more than an India - Pakistan test match either in India or Pakistan. The recent ODI series was a pretty big success, wish they would have a proper test series.

 

[Adders]

They actually beat us 2-0

Sorry, don't mind me.......total brain fart on my part.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, financially it's a problem if any of them go down but in the interest of integrity it just can't be the case. As Nasser says it makes a mockery of the system from the outset.

England, Australia and India may well have the cash but none of them have a team that you can say categorically is in the top 3 going around and will be for the next few years. Wasn't that long ago that each one of them was at one point languishing down at 5th in the rankings. England couldn't in either a home or away series beat NZ.........how can anyone say that England should be a protected side??

What would the financial ramifications be if Brazil bombs out in the first round of the FIFA WC later this year?? They aren't protected (beyond automatic qualification) Having the top draw team/player bomb is a risk that any sporting competition has to contend with.

Instead of this arrogant demand these so called powerhouses should spend their cash on making sure their teams are good enough to stay in the top tier on merit.

No, if FTP is done away with, it doesn't matter financially. Being relegated or not has no bearing on whether you can arrange any bilateral tours. They just don't want the embarrassment of proclaiming themselves the keepers of cricket and then not even being in the top eight.

 

[Garson007]

No, if FTP is done away with, it doesn't matter financially. Being relegated or not has no bearing on whether you can arrange any bilateral tours. They just don't want the embarrassment of proclaiming themselves the keepers of cricket and then not even being in the top eight.

Nor the indignation of being forced to play in the intercontinental cup.

 

[Prince EWS]

I haven't read the draft as I assumed it too depressing, but the two parts of the proposal don't match up to me.

To me, you can solve the "problem" of non-viable series in two ways:

1. Instigate promotion and relegation, ensuring Test cricket overall is regularly making money from matches between the top sides and isn't losing out of non-contests.

2. Remove the FTP and make each series live off its own bat.

If you're doing #2, then what exactly is the point of #1? Doing both makes no sense; a team could get itself relegated and just completely ignore it by not scheduling any games against the other teams in Tier 2 but regularly schedule them against Tier 1 sides. Promotion and relegation is completely irrelevant without some sort of forced league. What would actually change if you got relegated?

 

[NasserFan207]

I haven't read the draft as I assumed it too depressing, but the two parts of the proposal don't match up to me.

To me, you can solve the "problem" of non-viable series in two ways:

1. Instigate promotion and relegation, ensuring Test cricket overall is regularly making money from matches between the top sides and isn't losing out of non-contests.

2. Remove the FTP and make each series live off its own bat.

If you're doing #2, then what exactly is the point of #1? Doing both makes no sense; a team could get itself relegated and just completely ignore it by not scheduling any games against the other teams in Tier 2 but regularly schedule them against Tier 1 sides. Promotion and relegation is completely irrelevant without some sort of forced league. What would actually change if you got relegated?

I'm beginning to think the whole thing is just a smokescreen for something else, its too illogical

 

[Daemon]

India Cricket News: BCCI puts ICC events on the line | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Garson007]

I'm beginning to think the whole thing is just a smokescreen for something else, its too illogical

Of course it is. Once control of the constitution is in the three's hands they can do whatever they want - no matter what was agreed to in here. I'm actually surprised that the exemption was literally in this draft.

 

[marc71178]

India dropping out of international cricket would be the best outcome. Might even see an independent ICC that way.

A bankrupt ICC you mean?

 

[Garson007]

A bankrupt ICC you mean?

Nonsense. Rights will still be sold to broadcasters that are in India and lots of Indians will still watch the world cup. The revenue the Indian team brings in is highly overrated by the BCCI.

Yes, there will be some scaling back, but it would hardly be the case of becoming bankrupt. Salaries of administrators and the cost of events will be covered quite easily.

 

[indiaholic]

**** off BCCI. Go die somewhere.

 

[Maximas]

South Africa have belatedly offered to host Zimbabwe for a one-off test before the Aus tour, Firdose Moonda seems to think this might be an attempt to encourage Zimbabwe to join SA in their opposition to the big three proposal, although the whole thing depends on Zim player salaries of course. Would have thought it would be difficult for the Zim board to go against India when the India tour was the only profitable one for the Zimbabwe board last year

 

[Prince EWS]

Would have thought it would be difficult for the Zim board to go against India when the India tour was the only profitable one for the Zimbabwe board last year

Conversely, how often are India going to play against Zimbabwe if they push the new proposals in and they never ever have to again outside of World Cups (which Zimbabwe will also get significantly less money from under the draft)?

I absolutely think it's in Zimbabwe's best interests to oppose this unless they can get India to agree to play them once every two years for the next two decades, or maybe pay their players for them.

It's easy to say that India will buy off the smaller nations, but that'd defeat the purpose of the whole thing, which seems to be redirecting funds from the smaller nations to India (and Australia/England). Paying off Zimbabwe, West Indies and Sri Lanka to vote for a proposal so you can then take money away from Zimbabwe, West Indies and Sri Lanka just seems, a bit like the "two tiers but no league structure and no FTP" thing, contradictory and pointless.

As for the South Africa/Zimbabwe Test, a weird one. Zimbabwe were due to play Afghanistan in some ODIs and T20s this month but they cancelled it because their players won't play until ZC pays them. Unless CSA have slipped them a brown paper bag then it has very little chance of happening.

 

[Shri]

Nonsense. Rights will still be sold to broadcasters that are in India and lots of Indians will still watch the world cup. The revenue the Indian team brings in is highly overrated by the BCCI.

Yes, there will be some scaling back, but it would hardly be the case of becoming bankrupt. Salaries of administrators and the cost of events will be covered quite easily.

You underestimate Indian corruption. Channels might be barred from telecasting any such matches in India.

 

[Shri]

Beginning to think this is all a negotiation tactic to get an IPL window in international cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

You underestimate Indian corruption. Channels might be barred from telecasting any such matches in India.

See I thought this too, but if the ICL taught us anything it's that the BCCI doesn't actually have as much political clout as some of us thought. The ICL actually took the BCCI to the high court and won over his anti-competitive antics and the ICL never got close to being pulled off TV.

In theory the ICC could just recognise an entirely different body as representing the Indian national team; the new body could form an Indian side to take part in the World Cup and the rest of international cricket, and sell TV rights for that to the Indian market. The BCCI would still have the players on contract for the time being of course but the players will go to where the opportunity to make money and represent their country was at the end of the financial year. While the BCCI has money now, its wealth is not intrinsic to its very existence - it's earned through the product its selling; a product that would quickly vanish if they lost their opposition and eventually their players. The BCCI would face competition from whichever group would play nice enough with the other boards to be chosen by the ICC to represent India.

The other boards would have to collectively grow a set for that to happen though. No chance.

 

[Shri]

See I thought this too, but if the ICL taught us anything it's that the BCCI doesn't actually have as much political clout as some of us thought. The ICL actually took the BCCI to the high court and won over his anti-competitive antics and the ICL never got close to being pulled off TV.

In theory the ICC could just recognise an entirely different body as representing the Indian national team; the new body could form an Indian side to take part in the World Cup and the rest of international cricket, and sell TV rights for that to the Indian market. The BCCI would still have the players on contract for the time being of course but the players will go to where the opportunity to make money and represent their country was at the end of the financial year. While the BCCI has money now, its wealth is not intrinsic to its very existence - it's earned through the product its selling; a product that would quickly vanish if they lost their opposition and eventually their players. The BCCI would face competition from whichever group would play nice enough with the other boards to be chosen by the ICC to represent India.

The other boards would have to collectively grow a set for that to happen though. No chance.

Nah, in fighting is different than the "us vs them / evil westerners" fight. Everyone will band together and make it happen if push comes to shove through any compromise.