Indian Antics to get "Their" Money Back

[Wrong Maxwell]

India has refused to name their champions squad in the hopes of regaining "their" 200 million dollars that was "taken" from "them" and divied up amongst all the other full fledged nations. ICC just told em to name the squad or 'face consequences'. Thoughts?

 

[Pratters]

Welcome to the forum. I am glad the ICC has stood up to the BCCI. Hopefully it gets resolved though.

 

[Wrong Maxwell]

Thanks! Funny thing is that the current head of the ICC is an indian himself! But yeah, India have financially 'bullied' the other nations, especially smaller ones such as Afghanistan and the like. Time for some change.

 

[indiaholic]

This is news. When did India bully Afghanistan? IIRC India is where the Afghan team is based out of.

 

[Pratters]

This is news. When did India bully Afghanistan? IIRC India is where the Afghan team is based out of.

By not allocating adequate funds for associates?

 

[OverratedSanity]

India has done more for Afghanistan than the other boards have even thought of helping the associates.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah but if money allocated to them is very low it doesn't help in net.

 

[Wrong Maxwell]

I more meant smaller nations rather than Afghanistan specifically, maybe more like Zimbabwe would be a more adequate example. Sorry for the confusion

 

[cnerd123]

Nah I'm with the BCCI on this. The other countries aren't even proportionally contributing to the Associates fund. Why should the BCCI bear the burden on behalf of the other corrupt and incompetent boards?

 

[Pratters]

Does BCCI generate 80 percent of revenues generated for ICC as claimed by BCCI?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah I'm with the BCCI on this. The other countries aren't even proportionally contributing to the Associates fund. Why should the BCCI bear the burden on behalf of the other corrupt and incompetent boards?

The BCCI isn't bearing any burden. The extra revenue they were getting under the big 3 policy was absurd and based on warped logic. To say that it's "unfair" to take away that money is silly. It shouldn't have been the BCCI's to begin with.

 

[Wrong Maxwell]

Nah I'm with the BCCI on this. The other countries aren't even proportionally contributing to the Associates fund. Why should the BCCI bear the burden on behalf of the other corrupt and incompetent boards?

Development of cricket as whole is not good enough? I understand that india produces a large portion of the funds, However, it doesnt seem rational for all the associate countries combined money to be 13 million less than the BCCI even after the cuts.

 

[Wrong Maxwell]

Even as an Aussie, im fine with the larger nations ie; Aus, India, Eng, RSA to lose money as long as it goes to further development of associate nations or even affiliate (Even smaller countries ie; Finland, France, Estonia). Aslong as it doesnt go into the bigwigs pockets. Ive played affiliate cricket in europe and the country I lived in recieved cca 2000 euros a year for the whole country. Further more, there are no tournaments for affiliate countries to advance up the ranks following an ICC agreement in 2012. Perhaps a new thread for affiliate nations if ther isnt one already?

 

[honestbharani]

The BCCI isn't bearing any burden. The extra revenue they were getting under the big 3 policy was absurd and based on warped logic. To say that it's "unfair" to take away that money is silly. It shouldn't have been the BCCI's to begin with.

The current model is not? So when was this great time in life when ICC actually had a "fair" model of revenue distribution?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Long game is how much does India (same for England and NZ) care about international cricket. It's in their long term interest that countries that don't have the same financial power as them are competitive and the sport thrives, to ensure that the quality of cricket remains high and a variety of competitors exist in twenty five years time. If the most important thing to these nations is the next quickest dollar, then you're milking the golden goose dry.

 

[Pratters]

Yep Jack. It's concerning.

 

[honestbharani]

Long game is how much does India (same for England and NZ) care about international cricket. It's in their long term interest that countries that don't have the same financial power as them are competitive and the sport thrives, to ensure that the quality of cricket remains high and a variety of competitors exist in twenty five years time. If the most important thing to these nations is the next quickest dollar, then you're milking the golden goose dry.

You would think that but that did not stop cricket from growing when it was basically Australia and England running the show and taking most of the money. I see the need to keep the game strong globally and I think all full members MUST give up a share of their revenue for the greater good, sorta like taxes, but then again, that point has nothing to do with the this new model, which is basically BCCI getting its share cut to fund the ICC ($100M????) and the associates while the rest retain their shares.

As I said in the other thread, the fairest method would be to determine the percentage shares for the full member boards first, then earmark an amount for associates + ICC (ICC surely has no need for that much money), divide the rest up based on the percentages already arrived at. Fat chance of that happening though.

 

[harsh.ag]

Why does ICC need the money? What do they do with it?

 

[cnerd123]

ICC pays the umpires, don't they? Plus they got the ICC Academy and various cricket development programmes around the world, and I wouldn't be surprised if ICC funds were used to cover some % of logistics costs for ICC events

 

[Daemon]

ICC pays the umpires, don't they? Plus they got the ICC Academy and various cricket development programmes around the world, and I wouldn't be surprised if ICC funds were used to cover some % of logistics costs for ICC events

The ICC also gives money to the board that's hosting a tournament. It gives loans to members as well. Things like the WCL are all exclusively ICC funded.

India was complaining that they didn't get enough for the recent WT20 in comparison to what England got iirc.