Bangladesh squad joins ICL

[four_or_six]

I'm not entirely sure this is an accurate analogy - and this is separate from my indifference to Twenty20 which causes me to not give a damn who wins the IPL or the ICL - because the idea isn't really to find who's best, but simply to put-on a razzmatazz and make as much money as possible.

The reasons for hoping the ICL is removed from the scene is purely to do with its disruptional potential, not because anyone involved is terribly interested in trying to make it clear who's the best. The BCCI would quite happily, doubtless, run two separate Twenty20 competitions if they thought they'd make more money that way. Likewise I'm sure Zee would.

I think in the IPL it was definitely about who was best. It appeared from the outside the players were highly competitive and pretty much all about winning. Either that or they put on a convincing act.

 

[Richard]

I disagree on the grounds that ICL contracts have been specifically designed since (as in the aforementioned case of Shane Bond) to allow players to be released for all international cricket. So if the BCCI international cricket takes preference, the two aren't in competition- a player can play for his country when needed, and work for whoever he likes for the whole time in between. What gives anyone, the BCCI included, the right to say which cricket organisations a player can play for in his spare time?

Aside from the fact that "spare time" is precious few and far between (and players, understandably, complain about this from time to time)... do you think any employer would allow their employees to work for rivals in their spare time? Of course not, contracts prohibit such a thing. And the ICL is a BCCI competitor, designed to disrupt the BCCI - as I say, it was set-up because Zee's owner wanted broadcast-rights he didn't get. Even if we accept for a minute that, unlike Packer, he wasn't actually trying to steal the players (and I don't - even if it might on the face of it appear that way), the fact is he's trying to put on cricket that people want to watch instead of what the BCCI (and, by chain, the game of cricket) has best interests for them to be watching.

And in any case, I thought you admitted that the design of those contracts was principally propaganda on the part of Zee? Because that's precisely what it is for mine - they have no interest in trying to maintain the standard of international cricket.

 

[Richard]

I think in the IPL it was definitely about who was best. It appeared from the outside the players were highly competitive and pretty much all about winning. Either that or they put on a convincing act.

I don't doubt that, but the players didn't do the organising - they just accepted offers. Nor do I imagine that many players are terribly bothered about the fact that the non-involvement of a few players who might otherwise be involved were they not ICL-engaged has impacted upon whether the best possible are all playing.

The IPL hasn't been designed to try and showcase who's best at Twenty20 - it's been designed to make a handsome bottom-line return, which it's done, emphatically.

 

[four_or_six]

I don't doubt that, but the players didn't do the organising - they just accepted offers. Nor do I imagine that many players are terribly bothered about the fact that the non-involvement of a few players who might otherwise be involved were they not ICL-engaged has impacted upon whether the best possible are all playing.

The IPL hasn't been designed to try and showcase who's best at Twenty20 - it's been designed to make a handsome bottom-line return, which it's done, emphatically.

I don't really mean anyone minds about the ICL players missing at the moment. The thing is, I feel that if the ICL is allowed to continue and say pinch half the good players, the whole competition becomes a farce because you don't know which to watch.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Thing is, you want only one competition. Can you imagine two Premierships going on at the same time in football? How do the fans know who is the best team in the country?

There actually was an analogous situation in Australian rugby league back in the mid-late 90s & that schism was caused by tv broadcasting rights too. News International wanted to buy the national comp but the Kerry Packer-backed ARL didn't much want to be bought. As with the ICL players, all those who signed with News International’s Super League comp were banned from playing internationals. For one season two rival first-grade comps ran side-by-side (97 from memory), fortunately common sense prevailed and the two rivals merged to form the still extant NRL.

Such a rapprochement between the ICL & IPL seems a pretty forlorn hope as of now though.

 

[Richard]

I don't really mean anyone minds about the ICL players missing at the moment. The thing is, I feel that if the ICL is allowed to continue and say pinch half the good players, the whole competition becomes a farce because you don't know which to watch.

There is so much that's so much more important to worry about players being pinched from than the IPL though.

Like, y'know - Tests.

 

[social]

Potentially a smart move by ICL and the players

Unless the ICC wants Bangas to be even less competitive than they already are, they'll either have to:

1. Allow the players to play ICL and international cricket, thereby creating a precedent for the return of Bond, etc whilst giving the the ICL an air of legitimacy - doubtful scenario as the BCCI (sorry, ICC) wont cop it; or

2. Allow themselves to be blackmailed into giving the Banga players more money to stay loyal - more likely as the BCCIICC only talks money

 

[four_or_six]

There is so much that's so much more important to worry about players being pinched from than the IPL though.

Like, y'know - Tests.

But once you allow it for one thing, you may as well just have a free-for-all where anyone can do anything. I think the best thing for tests is that the T20 stuff is kept under control and also kept official. If you let all sorts of T20 leagues spring up, players could play T20 all year round and ignore tests.

 

[Richard]

Oh, yes, and that danger has been discussed ad infinitum. But that's a danger relating to formats, not to the formation of private leagues run by TV companies.

 

[cricman]

I only care about Aftab and Nafees, The Rest are and were Bums ... Honestly 200,000 USD thats alot Bashar and Rafique were true servents to Bangladesh Cricket they deserve every penny they get ... Some of the other A-Holes getting their money should never step foot in the country again ... Worthless Cricketers In the 1st place they had no hint of class let them get their money Bangladesh Cricket would be better off

But Aftab needs to stay, IPL needs to make a Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan Teams ... Shane Bond needs to come back as well

BCCI needs to do something

 

[Richard]

About the only thing the BCCI could really do would be to start doling-out cash to NZC, the BCB et al and thus enable much higher wages to be paid, thus removing the desire for players to take large ICL pay-packets.

And that I can't help but feel is a tadge on the unlikely side.

Though I suppose they could also give Zee Test cricket rights thus removing the raison d'etre for the ICL. But I'd imagine they'd view that as a spectacular comedown and would hence absolutely not take such an option, given that unlike the ACB in 1979 they aren't left with no alternative.

 

[GIMH]

As I say every time the ICL comes up, the BCCI have no legitimate right to say who should and shouldn't play for other countries, at least not on any sort of contractual basis. Agree with social, this situtation could see someone's hand forced one way or the other.

 

[Richard]

Regardless of the fact that BCCI have no moral right to say who should be barred from playing for other countries, the truth and facts of the matter is that they can decide that no ICL players will play for other countries, and any cricket board who opposes them on the issue is in deep trouble.

 

[Uppercut]

Aside from the fact that "spare time" is precious few and far between (and players, understandably, complain about this from time to time)... do you think any employer would allow their employees to work for rivals in their spare time? Of course not, contracts prohibit such a thing. And the ICL is a BCCI competitor, designed to disrupt the BCCI - as I say, it was set-up because Zee's owner wanted broadcast-rights he didn't get. Even if we accept for a minute that, unlike Packer, he wasn't actually trying to steal the players (and I don't - even if it might on the face of it appear that way), the fact is he's trying to put on cricket that people want to watch instead of what the BCCI (and, by chain, the game of cricket) has best interests for them to be watching.

And in any case, I thought you admitted that the design of those contracts was principally propaganda on the part of Zee? Because that's precisely what it is for mine - they have no interest in trying to maintain the standard of international cricket.

Of course they would allow me to work for a competitor in my spare time- if I'm working on contracts that keep me employed for ten months of the year, there's nothing they can do legally to stop me from working for someone else for the other two months, even if that someone else was a competitor. An employer can't, and should never, hold such power over an employee.

As for the propaganda- of course that's what it was, but it's legally binding nonetheless. Showing themselves willing to work with cricketer's desire to play international cricket was a big step- i don't believe, were they validated by the ICC, they would be able to realistically turn round and say their players could thereafter not play for their countries. It would be a ridiculously bad business decision to do so, and after all, if destroying the BCCI is one of their aims it is most definitely secondary to the aim of making money.

One more thing about the TV rights- wasn't the tour of Sri Lanka shown on Zee TV?

 

[Pratters]

Very interesting situation on our hands here. Bangladesh's case as a test nation reduces if they lose strong players. On the other hand, Zimbabwe were allowed to play test for far too long even after their squad was weakened. Will be interesting to see if the BCB offers more money to the players and the two parties reconcile or Bangladesh's international future becomes bleaker. The third option is ICL gaining more legitimacy as a result of this which is not as impossible as it sounds as we already have the case of a player playing an international after appearing in the ICL.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

the truth and facts of the matter is that they can decide that no ICL players will play for other countries, and any cricket board who opposes them on the issue is in deep trouble.

You make them sound like the mafia

BCCI have power but i think the people on this board give them far more than they really have. It's in other countries boards interest that the IPL wins over ICL just as much as it is the BCCI's interest.

Maybe if the BCCI hadnt shuned Twenty20 for as long as they did the ICL wouldnt have had the oppotunity to exploit the gap in the market that was left.

 

[Flem274*]

Expand the IPL. Its going to anyway, and when its expanded with more teams then there'll be more opportunities to players.

 

[four_or_six]

Expand the IPL. Its going to anyway, and when its expanded with more teams then there'll be more opportunities to players.

You don't want every single rubbish player in it though. There's already space for about 60 internationals over the squads, that's more than enough that anyone who is good should get a contract at some point in their career, isn't it?

 

[pup11]

You make them sound like the mafia

BCCI have power but i think the people on this board give them far more than they really have. It's in other countries boards interest that the IPL wins over ICL just as much as it is the BCCI's interest.

Maybe if the BCCI hadnt shuned Twenty20 for as long as they did the ICL wouldnt have had the oppotunity to exploit the gap in the market that was left.

As i said before ICL is a problem that it is today, only because BCCI couldn't handle it in a better way when it came into existence, BCCI attitude in regard to ICL is a bit dictator like, they have a problem with ICL so they can bar their players from participating in it, but why force ICC to make its other member nations also ban its players, it should be left to every board to decide whether they are willing to ban players who participate in the ICL or not.

 

[Craig]

Yeah - in other words, deliberately sticking the fingers up to the BCCI. Bad idea. Very, very bad idea.

Sometimes to make a stand you have to take what comes your way (cue that certain similie). Anyway counties are allowed to field ICL contracted players, why not the pressure to the ECB to tell the counties that have said ICL players to GAGF?

If NZC are not acting against the ICL, that's a crucial clause in the anti-ICL movement. If the ICL is to be truly outlawed (which IMO is indeed the right way to go), all major cricketing countries have to be involved.

That's tue, but are we any closer to that?