Bangladesh squad joins ICL

[Uppercut]

As I've said, perhaps the fact I think all cricket boards would be best served to isolate ICL players as the BCCI have done means I'll never be able to see through your eyes on this.

I don't feel the BCCI being able to dictate to other boards who they pick is right, but I do feel that by doing so they've got the outcome that's best in the long-term for those boards.

I feel that if anyone believes ICL players should still be allowed to play for their countries, that makes them pro-ICL, because they're not anti-ICL.

Pro-ICL is a pretty badly inaccurate description though, considering how we'd absolutely love to see it collapse tomorrow.

 

[Richard]

For some (like you and Rob), I guess. There's a few (like Martyn) who don't really seem bothered about it at all, and I think it's fair to describe anyone who doesn't want to see the back of it as pro.

 

[masterblaster]

Can't be bothered reading through the entire thread but here's my stance:

ICL is not the villain here, the BCCI are. It's a free world and the philosophy of free business and enterprise should stand. ICL is doing nothing wrong but giving deserving, hard working cricketers who would not make even half of the money they would make in the ICL the opportunity to make a decent living for themselves and to look after their families.

Making the ICL into a 'rebel' organisation or an outcast organistation is a entirely a BCCI stance. Fine, I agree that it causes a clash with the BCCI pet project, the IPL. But for the BCCI to come down like some bully and force other cricketing boards to not allow ICL players to play for their respective country is an abuse of power and an absolute disgrace.

Fine, you don't want to pick players for India who are in the ICL that's entirely your call. But if NZC wants Bond despite his interests in the ICL, then they should have the power to pick him seeing as they are the bloody governing body for cricket in NZ!

 

[fredfertang]

I agree with this. Every cricketer who signs up for the ICL does so of his own free will. He knows that may bring him into conflict with his own board, or any other employer he may have, and that should be an issue he has to deal with with whoever he has that contract with – it is not for the BCCI to dictate terms and the outcome of any litigation with BCCI wherein the latter were seeking to procure a breach of contract on the part of a national board, county, state, province or whoever would be most interesting.

What irritates me most though is the BCCI taking it one step further and damaging the careers of non ICL players by seeking to prevent a county/state/province participating in tournaments due to the desire of that county/state/province to either honour its contractual obligations or come to an agreement with those concerned in order to accommodate their ICL player(s)

I don't however think ICL are totally immune from accustions of villiany - If Zee TV cared about the game I would have thought that this would have been litigated as it was with Kerry Packer in the late 70’s so I presume they don’t

 

[GIMH]

For some (like you and Rob), I guess. There's a few (like Martyn) who don't really seem bothered about it at all, and I think it's fair to describe anyone who doesn't want to see the back of it as pro.

I'm not pro-ICL. Not bothered is a fairly apt description - when it first came about, I was like, meh. I don't care that it exists, I wouldn't care if it didn't. The freedom of sides to be picked by their own selectors, and the Champions League issue are what have made me seem pro-ICL, when I'm not. I am neither pro nor anti, but I very much am anti the BCCI's stance on it.

I said a couple of months back I wasn't going to post on this anymore, that turned out well
Jeez, I think the only things I've talked about more on CC are predicting England wins and talking up Freddie ()

 

[Uppercut]

For some (like you and Rob), I guess. There's a few (like Martyn) who don't really seem bothered about it at all, and I think it's fair to describe anyone who doesn't want to see the back of it as pro.

You can't agree with their decision to ban Kent from their champions league, surely?

 

[GIMH]

I believe he does

 

[Sanz]

Plus, who would investigate? Sharad Powar is an extremely poweful politician (president of the Nationalist Congress Party and the secretary of Agriculture). No one is going to do any investigations. The players won't, the boards won't - they want to be in his position eventually, and the Indian public sure as hell won't. If you're in the system, you don't want to change it. You can hire family members as athletic trainers, take huge retainers, go on vacations on company dime, and you don't ever have to produce a thing in your life.

Do you really think the guy who went to the US on a 'fact finding' trip for four months on company money wants to change it? The guy above him is doing things that are much worse, and the guy below him wants to get ahead. It's a great setup. But with that setup comes the insatiable appetite for money, because no matter how much you make, someone will be waiting for their cut, and it'll never be enough.

The only people that are hurt are the young cricketers of India who have no facilities to practice in, no coaches to teach them, and no trainers to take care of them.

Indeed. The BCCI is run by people who have their personal interests, egos and priorities and couldn't care less about Cricket.

I was watching an Interview of KapilDev (given in the Pre-ICL/IPL days), where he says It is impossible for a player to get into a state Cricket Association. Someone like him, as big as him, can't become a member of Haryana Cricket Association. I will try to find the Interview on Youtube..



He doesn't even know how to become a member, if you hear the Interview, you may think for a moment that he is joking, but you can see the frustration on his face. It is just pathetic. I will try to find the

 

[Richard]

You can't agree with their decision to ban Kent from their champions league, surely?

I believe he does

Yeah, 'course there's nothing wrong with it IMO. It's not a case of banning anyone - it's a case of not inviting them. The Champions League is the BCCI's creation, and they send the invites. No-one can say they should be inviting this and that team. They think they can improve the likelihood of counties not employing ICL players by refusing to invite counties who currently do have ICL players. And if Middlesex should win the inaugural event, I can see that working a treat.

No-one who says Kent should have been in the CL has a leg to stand on IMO.

 

[Richard]

I'm not pro-ICL. Not bothered is a fairly apt description - when it first came about, I was like, meh. I don't care that it exists, I wouldn't care if it didn't. The freedom of sides to be picked by their own selectors, and the Champions League issue are what have made me seem pro-ICL, when I'm not. I am neither pro nor anti, but I very much am anti the BCCI's stance on it.

As I said - for mine, if you wouldn't prefer it if the thing was exterminated, you are pro. There's just no room for any middle-ground.

 

[four_or_six]

It's a different thing feeling sorry for someone like Bond and Yousuf, who didn't really know what they were letting themselves in for, and the current Bangladesh players who know perfectly well that by signing for the ICL means they will be banned from international cricket. I feel sorry for the former and much less for the latter.

For the Bangladesh players, if they prefer to play ICL than internationals then that's their free choice. But it should be accepted as that. It's not as if they're badly paid, like in WSC days. Apparently their national contracts are $150000 for people like Nafees which with sponsorship is a pretty hefty wage. For my mind they should stop wingeing and get on with becoming better players. I hardly think a half-decent T20 league is going to produce the type of players Bangladesh cricket want to improve their international standing in the long term anyway.

 

[social]

FFS, READ POSTS!!!!!!!!!! I quite clearly said "IT WOULD BE OK IF THEY WERE DOING A DECENT JOB".

Where on Earth have I ever once remotely suggested that the BCCI are a high-quality cricket board???

What does the quality of their work have to do with it?

They're were employed on a certain basis and now you are suggesting that this should change with the quality of their work

 

[Rickripper]

The whole situation is a farce really, we all know that Bangladeshi cricket is in a fairly poor state. They were fairly comprehensively beaten by Australia in the end, but their bowling looked highly competent at times, and Ghosh looked like a terrific gloveman. This will set them back a long way though, and with the troubles with Zimbabwe, it looks like we're back to just the 8 teams again, for the time beaing at least.

 

[Richard]

What does the quality of their work have to do with it?

They're were employed on a certain basis and now you are suggesting that this should change with the quality of their work

The point is not about what basis they're employed on but the quality of their work. If their work was of good quality they'd deserve a nice pay-packet.

However, part of such good-quality work would of course be more even distribution of funds to areas more needy of it...

 

[Richard]

It's not as if they're badly paid, like in WSC days.

I've always been highly dubious on this one. Who defines "badly" paid? Dennis "fish-and-chip money" Lillee?

Fact is regardless of the perceived quality of your wage, if you get an offer of a substantial payrise, you're generally going to think long and hard about it. I don't think the WSC-accepting players and the ICL-accepting players deserve to be thought of any differently. Both were putting finance before cricketing legacy, which is quite fair enough from some points-of-view and very disappointing from others.

 

[GIMH]

As I said - for mine, if you wouldn't prefer it if the thing was exterminated, you are pro. There's just no room for any middle-ground.

It's not Marmite, it's the ICL...

Anyway, I see all of the Bangladesh players that have signed for the ICL have been banned from all things to do with Bangladesh Cricket right down to using toilet facilities, for ten years.

The ban has come from the BCB. The BCCI came out yesterday and said that it was up to the BCB whether their players signed for the ICL or not. I think we can all therefore assume there has been no pressure on the BCB here, they have made the decision that they felt was best for the future of cricket in Bangladesh

BTW also have no sympathy for the Bangas players, they knew full well what they were doing. Though I read earlier that the $200,000 they are set to earn over three years is three times what they'd have earned from the BCB, read this on Sky or ITV text, make of it what you will

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, 'course there's nothing wrong with it IMO. It's not a case of banning anyone - it's a case of not inviting them. The Champions League is the BCCI's creation, and they send the invites. No-one can say they should be inviting this and that team. They think they can improve the likelihood of counties not employing ICL players by refusing to invite counties who currently do have ICL players. And if Middlesex should win the inaugural event, I can see that working a treat.

No-one who says Kent should have been in the CL has a leg to stand on IMO.

Highly debatable, seems as when the CL was first announced it was stated that the top two T20 teams from South Africa, Australia, India and England would participate, and Kent finished second in England...

 

[Richard]

Yeah - originally that was the plan, but there was no binding something signed. The BCCI were always going to remain free to invite whoever they liked and not invite whoever they didn't, and their reasoning didn't have to be acceptable to anyone but themselves.

 

[Richard]

Anyway, I see all of the Bangladesh players that have signed for the ICL have been banned from all things to do with Bangladesh Cricket right down to using toilet facilities, for ten years.

The ban has come from the BCB. The BCCI came out yesterday and said that it was up to the BCB whether their players signed for the ICL or not. I think we can all therefore assume there has been no pressure on the BCB here, they have made the decision that they felt was best for the future of cricket in Bangladesh

Endorsing the ICL might well be a problem for the future of cricket in Bangladesh, as anywhere else. Though one has to imagine that had the BCCI not acted against the ICL, nor would the BCB.

BTW also have no sympathy for the Bangas players, they knew full well what they were doing. Though I read earlier that the $200,000 they are set to earn over three years is three times what they'd have earned from the BCB, read this on Sky or ITV text, make of it what you will

Basically means the players want to earn more money than they otherwise would. Makes perfect sense in one respect. I can't overtly begrudge anyone who wants to up their earnings for wanting to do such a thing - I imagine I would myself. I'm sure many people will be disappointed international cricket didn't mean more to them than that, but well... I can't see why anyone would be extraordinarily attached to a team that is routinely thrashed in most games.

Can only hope some form of move to suspend Bangladesh's Test status (ODI would be asking a bit much) is made. Obviously they're not going to have full member status revoked, any more than Zimbabwe were, but if they're not playing that's at least something.

 

[anoop4real]

Bangladesh cricket board has banned the players who joined ICL for 10 years .........this is really a setback to the Bangladesh team....... until and unless the fixture of ICL clashes with the team's International matches, players should be allowed to play in ICL, am I right??