The WICB lawyers wouldn't hold that view. They'd really want to avoid the serial offender tag.
The tri-series would not have been part of the FTP under the old system to begin with since it wasn't inked on the calendar early enough. It would not have been played under the old system and it wasn't played under the new system. Same difference.
I believe Giles Clarke may have been the one in Big 3 to start the idea, but in the end all 3 of them are behind it, its not possible in that new despicable triumvirate for 1 of the big three to want something done and two disagree's and it gets done (unless is BCCI since they have the most money still) - Wally Edwards from CA have openly stated his support of 10 team world cup - Wally Edwards: 'Hope I get my way: four Full Members having to qualify for the World Cup' | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
Have all of the Small 7 cricket boards openly voiced their displeasure at the format? If not, what makes them any better than the Big 2 (and England)?
Except the new system is not a "ICC FTP" as you termed it. Its bilateral arrangements.
No i've yet to see a board state displeasure, but why would they when they are at the mercy of the Big 3?
So what you're saying is that the situation would be no different under either system. Thanks for clearing that up. Plainly the Big 3 bogeyman exists as a means for the small 7 to divert attention away from the fact that they would have been on-board with the 10 team WC even under the old system. If you're against the 10 team WC, speak up. Or keep silent and let it be known that you're on board with getting your grubby hands on more $$ too. The small 7 are no different from the Big 2 (and England). They just like to put on an act of self-righteousness.
The Big 2 are benevolent and merciful while England is clearly evil. The distinction needs to be made.
Disagree. People in position of power have to take the maximum blame because they are people in position who hold the authorities. They are sitting at top expected to make right decisions for the greater good of cricket. Blame goes to other boards too for not raising their voice echoing associate members but for a failed kingdom, king has to cop it; like it or not
The king also gets to do as he pleases. If you insist on them taking on all the criticism, then you shouldn't also complain about them garnering the greatest benefits from the system. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
What are you saying dude? The big 3 are getting criticism as they have put their interest ahead the good of cricket.
Those who do not speak out against this also bear responsibility. Silence indicates complicity.
They could make their opposition to the 10 team WC proposal known clearly for a start. Talk costs nothing. The associate members have voiced their displeasure. The silence of the small 7 is telling. They're silent not because they consider voicing their concerns futile, but because they're glad for the extra $$ that a 10 team WC provides them.
Disagree with this. Each board member is there to do what's best for their country's cricket. Speaking out against the Big 3 isn't one of those things. They are silent because they have to be.