India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[G.I.Joe]

The simplest solution really would be for the member boards to arrive at an arrangement whereby the BCCI gets to keep revenues in proportion to it's contribution, thus removing any claims they would have to being compensated with more power in the decision making within the ICC.

 

[silentstriker]

The simplest solution really would be for the member boards to arrive at an arrangement whereby the BCCI gets to keep revenues in proportion to it's contribution, thus removing any claims they would have to being compensated with more power in the decision making within the ICC.

There is a reason the NFL is so lucrative. In the short term, if they had done something like revenues in proportion to contribution, five teams would have made ridiculously more money. Over the long term, they would have made a lot less.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

If you are interested in reading a very in depth post on the finances of cricket: Idle Summers - Observations on Cricket Finance

Some highlights:

That is interesting. Some of those numbers are much smaller than I'd expect. Only USD$25m of dividends from their T20 leagues, only about 10% of those leagues total revenue? Where does the rest go to?

 

[silentstriker]

That is interesting. Some of those numbers are much smaller than I'd expect. Only USD$25m of dividends from their T20 leagues, only about 10% of those leagues total revenue? Where does the rest go to?

To various intermediaries who pocke...err...use them for development.

(Actually, the a lot goes to the individual franchises I believe).

 

[Prince EWS]

The simplest solution really would be for the member boards to arrive at an arrangement whereby the BCCI gets to keep revenues in proportion to it's contribution, thus removing any claims they would have to being compensated with more power in the decision making within the ICC.

I don't think having only five Test teams because five of the boards can't afford to play Tests anymore is really any more desirable than having only five Test teams because the BCCI say so, in the end.

The entire problem with giving the BCCI more power in the first place is that we know full well they'll manipulate the situation to give themselves more money, so manipulating the situation to give them more money to avoid that is a bit like shooting your mother to protect her from the danger of being stabbed by your next door neighbour.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

To various intermediaries who pocke...err...use them for development.

(Actually, the a lot goes to the individual franchises I believe).

So, on that basis, the IPL isn't as lucrative to the BCCI on an institutional level than I'd expect. Thus, some bilateral series must make more money for the BCCI than the IPL does.

Though, of course the IPL could grow and I'm guessing a number of BCCI luminaries also have a thumb or two in the individual franchise pies.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think having only five Test teams because five of the boards can't afford to play Tests anymore is really any more desirable than having only five Test teams because the BCCI say so, in the end.

The entire problem with giving the BCCI more power in the first place is that we know full well they'll manipulate the situation to give themselves more money, so manipulating the situation to give them more money to avoid that is a bit like shooting your mother to protect her from the danger of being stabbed by your next door neighbour.

I think the benefit of power over money is that there is no way they would ever have power in commesurate with the money they generated unless they had sole veto power. So thinking from the perspective of picking between two bad options, it's clear which one they would prefer to take.

 

[silentstriker]

So, on that basis, the IPL isn't as lucrative to the BCCI on an institutional level than I'd expect. Thus, some bilateral series must make more money for the BCCI than the IPL does.

Though, of course the IPL could grow and I'm guessing a number of BCCI luminaries also have a thumb or two in the individual franchise pies.

Yes to both bolded parts. But the bilateral tours are way more beneficial to the other country and there're always multiple countries willing to host or tour India, so they can do whatever they want, knowing they won't have to worry about that.

As for the second bolded part, for example, the current President of the BCCI is N Srinivasan. He is also the managing director of India Cements, Ltd (his father co-founded the company). India Cements owns the Chennai Super Kings.

Ta-da. Clearly no conflicts of interests there.

 

[silentstriker]

That is interesting. Some of those numbers are much smaller than I'd expect. Only USD$25m of dividends from their T20 leagues, only about 10% of those leagues total revenue? Where does the rest go to?

Actually, reading that again, the $25m is just the dividends the franchises pay per year in order to own the team. I think the total revenue from the IPL to the Indian board is about half (counting the TV rights and other sources, which are shared by the BCCI and the franchises).

From that same source.

Notwithstanding that the IPL effectively doubles what the BCCI make from their home market, they ultimately end up with only around half the revenue generated locally, despite having a monopoly control over the team that market pays to watch. This is both quite surprising, and an indication of why they are increasingly bullish about increasing their share of global revenue.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yes to both bolded parts. But the bilateral tours are way more beneficial to the other country and there're always multiple countries willing to host or tour India, so they can do whatever they want, knowing they won't have to worry about that.

As for the second bolded part, for example, the current President of the BCCI is N Srinivasan. He is also the managing director of India Cements, Ltd (his father co-founded the company). India Cements owns the Chennai Super Kings.

Ta-da. Clearly no conflicts of interests there.

LOL

No wonder the Indian team is full of CSK players like the useless Raina, Jedeja and Ashwin.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

No, I am on your side. I don't think cricket should be ruined thanks to a few greedy people. But I guess I am not in that position so don't know what I'd do.

Haha. I wasn't having a go, I honestly hadn't realised that we'd come full circle back to the greed argument again - but you put me right!

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't think having only five Test teams because five of the boards can't afford to play Tests anymore is really any more desirable than having only five Test teams because the BCCI say so, in the end.

That's the rub, isn't it?

The entire problem with giving the BCCI more power in the first place is that we know full well they'll manipulate the situation to give themselves more money, so manipulating the situation to give them more money to avoid that is a bit like shooting your mother to protect her from the danger of being stabbed by your next door neighbour.

I don't think that's really it, though. The BCCI probably has two main aims here, both of which also serve to maximise revenue in a way that isn't as scary as people seem to think.

(a) A window for the IPL (which is probably why Giles Clarke has hitched his wagon with the BCCI - The ECB cannot afford India going it alone and expanding the IPL to eat into the English summer),

(b) A proper home season - Think of the SA-Aus conflict a couple of years back wrt playing over the festive season. That's the exact same problem India has. The BCCI needs a proper home schedule from Sep-Feb, and wants to bring back the once traditional New Years and Pongal Tests. There's a feeling within the BCCI that India has been forced to make concessions by forgoing home series' over that period for donkey's years due to the FTP and the Aus/SA insistence on not touring overseas over that period.

There's no point in carving out a home season if you don't have teams that are available to tour at that time. Australia definitely won't (you could say they're being greedy), South Africa probably won't. India can't host England every year. There would be no obligation for NZ/WI/SL to tour India if India doesn't tour NZ/WI/SL. Problem solved. There's no crisis.

The BCCI concedes the ridiculous veto by proxy and gets what it really wants - a window for the IPL and freedom from the FTP allowing them to plan a proper home season.

 

[silentstriker]

That's the rub, isn't it?



I don't think that's really it, though. The BCCI probably has two main aims here, both of which also serve to maximise revenue in a way that isn't as scary as people seem to think.

(a) A window for the IPL (which is probably why Giles Clarke has hitched his wagon with the BCCI - The ECB cannot afford India going it alone and expanding the IPL to eat into the English summer),

(b) A proper home season - Think of the SA-Aus conflict a couple of years back wrt playing over the festive season. That's the exact same problem India has. The BCCI needs a proper home schedule from Sep-Feb, and wants to bring back the once traditional New Years and Pongal Tests. There's a feeling within the BCCI that India has been forced to make concessions by forgoing home series' over that period for donkey's years due to the FTP and the Aus/SA insistence on not touring overseas over that period.

There's no point in carving out a home season if you don't have teams that are available to tour at that time. Australia definitely won't (you could say they're being greedy), South Africa probably won't. India can't host England every year. There would be no obligation for NZ/WI/SL to tour India if India doesn't tour NZ/WI/SL. Problem solved. There's no crisis.

The BCCI concedes the ridiculous veto by proxy and gets what it really wants - a window for the IPL and freedom from the FTP allowing them to plan a proper home season.

Considering the only non negotiable part of the deal from the BCCI are the changes in the ICC revenue sharing model, you should add a (c).

 

[G.I.Joe]

Okay, maybe they're just a little bit evil. Stop making me look like a fool

 

[Prince EWS]

Considering the only non negotiable part of the deal is the ICC revenue sharing model, you should add a (c).

Yeah exactly. I really couldn't give a rat's arse how much money the BCCI is able to accumulate; what I do care about is the viability of Test cricket. If you tell the smaller, more at risk countries in which Test cricket isn't very profitable or indeed runs at a loss sometimes that
a) Even though they rely on India touring to prop up the expenses a lot of their other games incur, India now won't be obliged to do so and they'll have to arrange it with the BCCI themselves, and
b) The BCCI is now going to be taking a lot of the money they rely on from ICC events
c) They won't have to schedule any Tests if they don't feel like it

.. then they just won't schedule many/any Tests. If the BCCI want to make more money by expanding the IPL and their home season then okay; that's legitimately getting more money out of the game. If they want to make more money by changing the revenue sharing program or not touring certain other countries, then that's just redirecting funds from where they're most needed to where they're least needed. I don't care if it's fair or not; the ICC isn't tasked with doing what's fair but with doing what's best for international cricket.

 

[simonlee48]

The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) may yesterday have signed a death warrant for cricket in the country. BCB directors voted 20-3 in favour of supporting the draft proposal which will be tabled at the next International Cricket Council (ICC) meeting on 28-29 January, a proposal that will bring about a massive upheaval in Bangladesh cricket.

If the proposal -- brought forward by India, Australia and England -- is adopted, as things stand, Bangladesh will not play Tests for eight years. After eight years of playing four-day cricket against Associate Member nations, if they finish on top of the eight-team ranking field they will play the bottom-ranked team of the top tier in Tests (which they would not have played for eight years) for a chance at a promotion. If India, England and Australia (who according to the proposal cannot be relegated) form the three lowest teams in the top tier, then Bangladesh will have to face the fifth-ranked side.

The impossibility of the situation is that the progress that Bangladesh have so far made has largely been due to them playing top-ranked opposition. If the proposal is adopted they will be playing against lower-ranked opposition and so scope for improvement outside the top eight will be improbable. The cricket eco-system is a fragile one with the few countries at the top needing to play each other -- with all the different conditions each country offers -- to stay competitive. The proposal will also remove power from the ICC and therefore any semblance of accountability of the top boards. It stands to harm cricket as a whole, but Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe, will be the swiftest and most tragic casualties.

BCB president Nazmul Hassan Papon hinted that when voting in favor of the draft proposal they took the long-term future of the game in account, citing reasons such as appeasing the powerful boards in order to gain future favours. What he and the BCB may have missed, however, is that with this draft proposal there may not be a long-term future for Bangladesh cricket.

BCB chooses not to play Test!

 

[Bahnz]

Don't worry, Bangladesh will still be playing against first division teams at more or less the same regularity as they are now (through bilateral tour agreements). As far as I understand it, they'll just have to play some additional matches against the associate nations to boot.

 

[silentstriker]

Ugh. That's unfortunate. It's up to the WICB now, it seems. SLC and CSA are the only two in opposition so far. Pakistan too, I think? I've read that they need eight votes, not seven? In which case, they have enough already, otherwise, it's all on the WICB. Which predictably is in negotiations with the other boards - I'm sure to see how much $$ they can leverage out of them for the vote...

Sigh.

 

[silentstriker]

Don't worry, Bangladesh will still be playing against first division teams at more or less the same regularity as they are now (through bilateral tour agreements). As far as I understand it, they'll just have to play some additional matches against the associate nations to boot.

I would highly doubt that. How do you figure?

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Ugh. That's unfortunate. It's up to the WICB now, it seems. SLC and CSA are the only two in opposition so far. Pakistan too, I think? I've read that they need eight votes, not seven? In which case, they have enough already, otherwise, it's all on the WICB. Which predictably is in negotiations with the other boards - I'm sure to see how much $$ they can leverage out of them for the vote...

Sigh.

Yeah i read that they need 8 votes as well. Heres hoping