Bangladesh squad joins ICL

[pup11]

The difference is that county cricket is run by what is effectively a sister company of the BCCI - ie, the ECB. The ECB and BCCI work together (not on an equals basis obviously) to run international cricket. The ICL is a completely different matter and is something run entirely for self-serving purposes.

The ICL is slowly but surely eating into the very core of international cricket , BCCI don't have much at stake but the smaller and less powerful cricket nations are losing their players due to this tussle between the BCCI and ICL, because they can't possibly piss BCCI off by picking ICL contracted players for national duties, so for that reason all these effected teams should come together and ask the ICC and BCCI to make a decision on this regard.

 

[GIMH]

Btw i could never figure out how playing in the ICL is any different from playing in county cricket, lets be honest what is the big deal in a player and going and playing in county cricket and earning a few bucks when he has no national duty or if he is not the part of the international team to him going and playing in the ICL, just because BCCI has a problem with ICL why should other boards be made to ban their players.

BCCI can afford to pay its players huge amount of money making it easier for them to ignore the lure of the ICL riches, but for smaller cricketing nations its not easy to stop their players from signing an ICL deal, as the kind of money that is up for grabs for players of these countries is just way too much for them to deny.

They shouldn't, simple as

 

[four_or_six]

I'm not allowed to work for anyone else in my spare time without my employer's permission. It's in my contract. I presumed that was usual tbh.

 

[pup11]

They shouldn't, simple as

But nobody wants to rub the mighty BCCI the wrong way, do they?

 

[social]

The ICL is a completely different matter and is something run entirely for self-serving purposes.

Maybe you'd like to enlighten me as to how the IPL serves the greater good

 

[pasag]

Richard, just who is being more disruptive?

Surely not the privately owned ICL, an entity that is legally obliged to release its contracted players in order to allow them to fulfill their "establishment" obligations.

Compare that stance to the "establishment" IPL

1. Players are withdrawing from international tours to chase the cash

2. The game's second most important ODI tournament is in limbo because the BCCI refuses to let its national team play on dates that conflict with its' non-accredited domestic flagship

3. Other country's (e.g. England) domestic programmes are being thrown into disarray because players are threatening to boycott tests that conflict with same

4. England's captain, and current messiah, has threatened to walk away from his adopted country's national team unless he's allow to play in the IPL

5. The BCCI blackmails anybody that stands in its' way (e.g. withholding the retirement benefits of one of its' country's greatest ever players because he dare serve a different master AFTER his retirement and refuses to pay ICL players for matches that they already have played)

Take your blinkers off mate, the only thing the ICL has been guilty of is being the first to recognise the potential of T20

Spot on.

 

[cricman]

Rumors have it that Tamim is being offered alot of Cash and the ICL Scouts have been in Bangladesh over a year attending matches and talking to the players

 

[Athlai]

Please not Tamim.

 

[Richard]

The ICL is slowly but surely eating into the very core of international cricket , BCCI don't have much at stake but the smaller and less powerful cricket nations are losing their players due to this tussle between the BCCI and ICL, because they can't possibly piss BCCI off by picking ICL contracted players for national duties, so for that reason all these effected teams should come together and ask the ICC and BCCI to make a decision on this regard.

As I said though - the only thing that the BCCI could do would be to offer Zee broadcast rights.

And they have more to lose by this than they do by doing what they're currently doing - regardless of how much others may lose (and I think that, to date, has been exaggerated - pretty well all the big-ish names so far have been retired, soon-to-be-retired-anyway, or poor-quality stuff that the teams in question are better-off without anyway). So I don't expect that to happen.

 

[Richard]

Maybe you'd like to enlighten me as to how the IPL serves the greater good

Maybe you'd like to stop talking as if I was praising the IPL to the heavens. I'm doing nothing of the sort - I've barely even mentioned the IPL in this thread.

Spot on.

Most of it might be - but as I say, it's almost all completely irrelevant to the post it was made in reply to.

 

[Richard]

They shouldn't, simple as

But they should - because even though it might not be ideal to be told to do so by the BCCI, the truth is that other countries would have more to lose by playing those players than by excluding them. The ICL is much best outlawed - for everyone.

 

[four_or_six]

Thinking about it, this whole thing about having a Bangladesh team and a Pakistan team makes me feel uncomfortable. It's almost as if the ICL haven't had impact in India so they've decided to pick on countries that are less able to fight back (I'd also include NZ in that).

I hope the ICC get their wallets out and help out these countries look after their top players. But I think they've also got to be sensible about not just throwing cash at players who're not that great and are just wingeing about not being picked.

 

[Richard]

I$C$C has long since stood by and done nothing about financial imbalances.

There's a limit, of course, to what could be done but it's always disappointed me that at least a bit more hasn't been.

 

[four_or_six]

I$C$C has long since stood by and done nothing about financial imbalances.

There's a limit, of course, to what could be done but it's always disappointed me that at least a bit more hasn't been.

What does BCCI actually do with all its money? Do they put a lot into player development and stuff or does it just go to the top players? I don't ask to be facetious, I genuinely don't know.

 

[Athlai]

Well top players and development certainly gets money, that's taking care of your product. But the BCCI are a board of people looking to fill their own pockets first and foremost.

 

[Richard]

What does BCCI actually do with all its money? Do they put a lot into player development and stuff or does it just go to the top players? I don't ask to be facetious, I genuinely don't know.

I tend to imagine most of it goes to the top officials (if they were doing an excellent job I'd say quite fair enough too TBH) and a fair bit to the top players.

Certainly nowhere near enough goes into development of impoverished areas, which number about 80% of the population or whatever it is - who will probably never turn their arm over, never mind pick-up a real cricket ball. Whose only thought in life is where the next meal may (or much more likely may not) come from.

 

[GIMH]

But they should - because even though it might not be ideal to be told to do so by the BCCI, the truth is that other countries would have more to lose by playing those players than by excluding them. The ICL is much best outlawed - for everyone.

No, they shouldn't. Forget ICL for a minute and look at the bigger picture. The players we pick in our England side is **** all to do with the BCCI, just like it's **** all to do with us who Australia pick. Dangerous precedents are being set for mine by the likes of New Zealand saying "okay, we won't pick our best bowler because it will upset the BCCI" and who know where it could lead from there. I don't believe for one second that such instances are in the best interests of the game as I would rather there be no international cricket at all than one board having the right to say who plays for the other teams.

 

[Richard]

But they're not saying "we'd best not pick such-and-such because it'll upset the BCCI" (though there's no denying that too is indeed a risk and a viable reason not to do so) - they're saying "our best interests are served by supporting the BCCI's fight against the ICL, as we're best off without the ICL as well".

See? There is no picture bigger than the importance of removing the ICL completely.

 

[Uppercut]

But they're not saying "we'd best not pick such-and-such because it'll upset the BCCI" (though there's no denying that too is indeed a risk and a viable reason not to do so) - they're saying "our best interests are served by supporting the BCCI's fight against the ICL, as we're best off without the ICL as well".

See? There is no picture bigger than the importance of removing the ICL completely.

Richard, the ICL will not just go away, not matter how much they wish it will. It's a growing business, and it looks destined to be at least successful enough to be maintained. Given that, do you still believe that the BCCI should try to destroy it, despite they fact that they can't, shouldn't they instead try to make the best out of it by working to ensure players like Bond are still available to play international cricket?

 

[Richard]

I realise the ICL is growing, it's something I've been at pains to point-out to others who insist it "lost" many times myself. But that doesn't mean it can't be stopped by stopping its source of players - and if counties and other teams are dissuaded from signing ICL players (which hasn't been done yet, clearly - but might be in time) then it might in turn dissuade players from signing for the ICL, which in turn would mean the ICL was no longer viable.

Maybe right now it seems a pipe-dream, and yes it is idealistic, but you just never know.

As I say - the only other way the ICL is going to go away is if the BCCI give Zee Indian cricket (Test, ODI and IPL) rights. I suppose I wouldn't mind that too much either.