BCCI Wants Ranatunga Dropped

[GIMH]

BCCI - it's none of your business.

yes

 

[Craig]

Haha, not surprised this has come back to bite Ranatunga on the arse after the whole ICL thing.

I'm not surprised, the SLC, the sports minister, the players are all supports of the BCCI (rather then against them), they clearly know what side their bread is buttered.

 

[Athlai]

If you do what we want I'll give you a prize!!!

 

[silentstriker]

Frankly, Ranatunga did not act with the best interest of SLC stakeholders in mind, so I would be happy if he is out.

With that said, it's not the BCCI who should be telling the SLC that. They are an independant board, and should figure it out themselves. If not, it's their loss.

 

[Craig]

It is times like these I wish we did not have a voting system in the ICC, because to quote Kent Brockman: "I have said it before, and I will say it again, Democracy does not work".

 

[silentstriker]

It is times like these I wish we did not have a voting system in the ICC, because to quote Kent Brockman: "I have said it before, and I will say it again, Democracy does not work".

Not sure what the ICC has to do with this one?

 

[GIMH]

I think what Craig is getting at is that if the ICC was a powerful, respectable body, they wouldn't let things like this happen

 

[Richard]

Not gonna happen though.

I$C$C has always been what it is, and there's absolutely no reason to expect it to change.

 

[GIMH]

Just because you know something isn't going to happen doesn't mean can't think that it should

 

[Richard]

Well, yeah, but I mean, Robert Mugabe and many other "leaders" should be stripped of power the day before they attain it. Doesn't mean there's any real point saying it should happen because it's just not realistically possible under certain climates.

 

[GIMH]

Surprised to hear you saying something like that Richard, forums are here for us to express, and discuss, our views. If somebody thinks that the ICC is a joke that is in need of change, then of course they should say so.

 

[silentstriker]

I think what Craig is getting at is that if the ICC was a powerful, respectable body, they wouldn't let things like this happen

Like what though? Stop someone from BCCI from saying something behind closed doors? If ICC was all powerful, SLC and ECB wouldn't have been allowed to bilaterally set up a tour outside the FTP in the first place.

 

[Richard]

Surprised to hear you saying something like that Richard, forums are here for us to express, and discuss, our views. If somebody thinks that the ICC is a joke that is in need of change, then of course they should say so.

I just think the ICC being a joke is so obvious it barely needs saying. Like "I think Bradman was the best batsman ever". But the chances of it being changed are slim to zero.

 

[GIMH]

Like what though? Stop someone from BCCI from saying something behind closed doors? If ICC was all powerful, SLC and ECB wouldn't have been allowed to bilaterally set up a tour outside the FTP in the first place.

Yeha, because all the BCCI do is say stuff, they don't actually exert any influence over other boards.

And yeah, fair enough if they had a bit of backbone the series perhaps should not have been set up.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeha, because all the BCCI do is say stuff, they don't actually exert any influence over other boards. .

Again, how would you stop a national board from saying something closed doors and setting up bilateral series? No matter how strong the ICC got, it could never do that.

 

[jeevan]

When you actually read the article, what the BCCI seems to have said is:

They had promised the Sri Lankan delegation that they will go ahead with the proposed deal or offer an even better one once Ranatunga is out of office, but had declared they would not strike any deal with SLC till then. They had indicated that there was a likelihood of two future Sri Lanka tours by the Indian team in the calendar scheduled for 2009 and 2010 being cancelled unless the situation at the SLC changes.

How is this blackmail? The BCCI is not obliged to bail out SLC in the first place, and certainly within it's bounds to suggest that they dont want to do any above-and-beyond business with Ranatunga. In the above para, they are explicitly saying they will provide some sort of financial package to SLC once his tenure is done.

 

[Richard]

Put simply, an organisation with known shadiness will always be regarded with more distaste than one known for its transparency, accountability and good faith.

The BCCI haven't done anything anywhere near as bad here as they've done at other times, and in fact Ranatunga has been as I say wholly stupid on a couple of matters (particularly disappointing as as I say, I'd high hopes for him when he was first appointed). But people dislike the BCCI, understandably, so they take any chance to heap opprobrium.

 

[Precambrian]

Put simply, an organisation with known shadiness will always be regarded with more distaste than one known for its transparency, accountability and good faith.

The BCCI haven't done anything anywhere near as bad here as they've done at other times, and in fact Ranatunga has been as I say wholly stupid on a couple of matters (particularly disappointing as as I say, I'd high hopes for him when he was first appointed). But people dislike the BCCI, understandably, so they take any chance to heap opprobrium.

Agree with you. Good points mate.

 

[SJS]

Put simply, an organisation with known shadiness will always be regarded with more distaste than one known for its transparency, accountability and good faith.

The BCCI haven't done anything anywhere near as bad here as they've done at other times, and in fact Ranatunga has been as I say wholly stupid on a couple of matters (particularly disappointing as as I say, I'd high hopes for him when he was first appointed). But people dislike the BCCI, understandably, so they take any chance to heap opprobrium.

You have a point there Richard but in this specific case BCCI has erred.

I can understand there pique at Ranatunga's words/actions. But he is just an employee (howsoever senior) of the Sri Lankan cricket authority. The relationship between the cricketing bodies of the two countries are not to be reduced to the level of Individuals.

Look at it this way. A minister from another country, maybe depending upon Indian help to survive like Nepal for example, says things about India that are unpalatable. India is well within its rights to feel mighty upset. They are also going to make a very serious and strong protest to the Nepalese Government and it might get a clarification from the other side and maybe even an apology of sorts.

BUT...

India can not turn around and say, "Sack this guy or we are going to stop the aid that we had promised you".

It is this that is wrong. It is demeaning, not just to Nepal but also to India to its status and shows it in very poor light and they, Nepal, wont do it.

By the way, Nepal IS a good example and there have been instances between the two countries that are strikingly similar to what I have just shown in hypothesis.

The maximum India could do, if there was no response to their protest whatsoever, is to take the measures they are threatening to take but NOT BY linking it to the removal of Ranatunga. Even if Sri Lanka wants to remove Ranatunga for their own reasons, this would be a very difficult time to do it because no self respecting nation/body likes to be coerced
into such major decisions at the point of a gun.

Thats why it is wrong and thats why it is blackmail.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You have a point there Richard but in this specific case BCCI has erred.

I can understand there pique at Ranatunga's words/actions. But he is just an employee (howsoever senior) of the Sri Lankan cricket authority. The relationship between the cricketing bodies of the two countries are not to be reduced to the level of Individuals.

Look at it this way. A minister from another country, maybe depending upon Indian help to survive like Nepal for example, says things about India that are unpalatable. India is well within its rights to feel mighty upset. They are also going to make a very serious and strong protest to the Nepalese Government and it might get a clarification from the other side and maybe even an apology of sorts.

BUT...

India can not turn around and say, "Sack this guy or we are going to stop the aid that we had promised you".

It is this that is wrong. It is demeaning, not just to Nepal but also to India to its status and shows it in very poor light and they, Nepal, wont do it.

By the way, Nepal IS a good example and there have been instances between the two countries that are strikingly similar to what I have just shown in hypothesis.

The maximum India could do, if there was no response to their protest whatsoever, is to take the measures they are threatening to take but NOT BY linking it to the removal of Ranatunga. Even if Sri Lanka wants to remove Ranatunga for their own reasons, this would be a very difficult time to do it because no self respecting nation/body likes to be coerced
into such major decisions at the point of a gun.

Thats why it is wrong and thats why it is blackmail.

Considering Ranatunga basically extorted $70 million off the BCCI, I don't see how the BCCI aren't within their rights to demand his ouster. Why would you rather BCCI behave like a sulking woman by keeping quiet and witholding their offer? That approach wouldn't benefit Sri Lanka at all.