India shot down Test championship

[Xuhaib]

I dont see why they should not split the sides into two halves. India, England, Australia and South Africa in one and they play longer series against each other and shorter ones against the other four viz Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nzland and Windies. The second four also play against themselves of course.

The TV rights can be split on one of many different criteria but basically no team should be asked to give up far too much more (in proportion to what they earn for the pool) and the fact that the bigger teams play fewer matches against the smaller ones will automatically reduce some of the complaints about having to accommodate the smaller teams.

The idea proposed by ICC is not a bad one at all. FTP is not going to work anymore. Its in everyone's interest to come down to the table with an attitude that we ALL need this to work out. Anyone holding on for just their own interests will eventually lose out too if the game suffers. India and England can not do this by themselves. And rebel players from the other sides, if they do take on their boards and start something in competition to allow them to participate in defiance of their boards will lose out in the long run since India (and even England) will squeeze the players groups even harder than they are doing the ICC.

haha....thats laughable apart from Aus,Sa, NZL and WI the other four sides bounce from first tier to 2 nd tier from time to time so this big small theory could look quite stupid if teams change their standings in the future.

 

[Xuhaib]

He broke it down in terms of monetary status, not quality. The big four are Ind/Aus/Eng/SA. They will continue to play each other more frequently than the "lesser" halves.

Is SACB as strong money wise as the other 3?

 

[SJS]

haha....thats laughable apart from Aus,Sa, NZL and WI the other four sides bounce from first tier to 2 nd tier from time to time so this big small theory could look quite stupid if temas change their standings in the future.

As Fusion rightly pointed out, the big small is to do with monetary strength and not just cricketing strength. Unfortunately it is money matters that are the hitch.

 

[silentstriker]

haha....thats laughable apart from Aus,Sa, NZL and WI the other four sides bounce from first tier to 2 nd tier from time to time so this big small theory could look quite stupid if temas change their standings in the future.

Is SACB as strong money wise as the other 3?

No. In reality, it's England and India vs. Everyone else. As mentioned in the article posted, it was an Australian idea to have the Test championship in the first place.

 

[SJS]

Is SACB as strong money wise as the other 3?

No. In reality, it's England and India vs. Everyone else. As mentioned in the article posted, it was an Australian idea to have the Test championship in the first place.

And SAF and AUS though not as strong as India and England in money terms have the capacity to bring bigger crowds even in India and England due to the power and attraction of their cricket thus these four have the most to gain from each other and these four have to agree for anything to become accepted.

 

[jeevan]

Given that ICC's revenue sharing structure results in a net money transfer away from India and Indian cricketers, I'm personally not unhappy with this turn of events.

I don't mind BCCI helping out financially other countries, and in fact I think it pretty much should consider this an obligation. That is the right thing to do, and it improves the game (and that is good for BCCI, even financially).

But I do mind mandated sharing as opposed to directed sharing. Many of the weaker boards are not run well and just handing money to them isn't the best use of any one's money. It is no surprise that this particular piece of news has come to light in a WICB report.

(Whether BCCI is run well or not is irrelevant, it is not taking money from others. Indians themselves can and should ask themselves about the accountability of BCCI, that's a different matter though).

 

[SJS]

Given that ICC's revenue sharing structure results in a net money transfer away from India and Indian cricketers, I'm personally not unhappy with this turn of events.

I don't mind BCCI helping out financially other countries, and in fact I think it pretty much should consider this an obligation. That is the right thing to do, and it improves the game (and that is good for BCCI, even financially).

But I do mind mandated sharing as opposed to directed sharing. Many of the weaker boards are not run well and just handing money to them isn't the best use of any one's money. It is no surprise that this particular piece of news has come to light in a WICB report.

(Whether BCCI is run well or not is irrelevant, it is not taking money from others. Indians themselves can and should ask themselves about the accountability of BCCI, that's a different matter though).

Unfortunately it is not only about money. If that was the case there would be no disagreement with what you say. But this is about the survival of the traditional form of the game. Its a question of first deciding who is interested in its survival and who isn't and then in what is the way to do it. Money is an important part of the issue but not the main issue.

 

[jeevan]

Unfortunately it is not only about money. If that was the case there would be no disagreement with what you say. But this is about the survival of the traditional form of the game. Its a question of first deciding who is interested in its survival and who isn't and then in what is the way to do it. Money is an important part of the issue but not the main issue.

Yet another ICC tournament might not be enough for that goal. Perhaps culling ODI's is the triage that this drastic situation requires. There's too much cricket, 20/20s are not going away - something has to give way.

(And the time used by ODIs can be divided up between tests and T20Is).

 

[James_W]

Gay. Test championship sounded gun.

Ahh I'm so immature.

 

[Craig]

Given that ICC's revenue sharing structure results in a net money transfer away from India and Indian cricketers, I'm personally not unhappy with this turn of events.

I don't mind BCCI helping out financially other countries, and in fact I think it pretty much should consider this an obligation. That is the right thing to do, and it improves the game (and that is good for BCCI, even financially).

But I do mind mandated sharing as opposed to directed sharing. Many of the weaker boards are not run well and just handing money to them isn't the best use of any one's money. It is no surprise that this particular piece of news has come to light in a WICB report.

(Whether BCCI is run well or not is irrelevant, it is not taking money from others. Indians themselves can and should ask themselves about the accountability of BCCI, that's a different matter though).

But the problem is that the BCCI will give out cash, but will expect something in return (ie votes their way). That's how it works in FIFA.

 

[sirdj]

Probably ODIs. Every Test country would have to play every other within a four year window.

That would be why the BCCI is so unwilling to adopt this.

ODIs being the profitable/moneymaking format why should they sacrifice it for more tests which brings in less revenue.

No-one except the purists watch test cricket. Why would you increase tournaments of a format which is less popular in the first place. Having more Tests will just reduce their worth even further.

What would be the objective of the test series?
To increase popularity of test cricket?
To add more world champion trophy's to your collection?

Its a bit wierd that Australia want this format and then they are reluctant to tour the subcontinent(except India).
And Pakistan would have a the double disadvantage of not being able to host games(local support & money).

 

[Craig]

Since it will be a few years before a team tours Pakistan again and Pakistan having to play their games in England, would the ECB get a cut of an TV money, or would it only go to the PCB?

 

[SJS]

Yet another ICC tournament might not be enough for that goal. Perhaps culling ODI's is the triage that this drastic situation requires. There's too much cricket, 20/20s are not going away - something has to give way.

(And the time used by ODIs can be divided up between tests and T20Is).

There is also too much pointless cricket. That needs to be set right.

Then Test cricket needs to be organised better and marketed better to increase interest world wide.

This was a step in that direction. One can understand differences on how many matches, who to play who, basically scheduling type of issues but sadly this is breaking down purely on financial matters. Thats the problem with the crisis in cricket today. Its become ONLY to do with money and BCCI has a major role to play in this.

 

[marc71178]

Since it will be a few years before a team tours Pakistan again and Pakistan having to play their games in England, would the ECB get a cut of an TV money, or would it only go to the PCB?

I believe that what happens over here is the grounds all tender for the right to stage games, and pay a fee to the ECB, then they keep all revenue and meet all costs of staging it. So I guess that this will be similar, only the money goes to the PCB (less a hosting fee to the ECB for allowing the games to come into the schedule without interfering with England's international calendar)

In terms of TV revenue, I suspect the PCB then gets it all as it is their own series (as is happening with their home series in NZ later this year IIRC)

 

[oitoitoi]

The money men strike again, shame I thought it was a really good idea.

 

[Furball]

That would be why the BCCI is so unwilling to adopt this.

ODIs being the profitable/moneymaking format why should they sacrifice it for more tests which brings in less revenue.

No-one except the purists watch test cricket. Why would you increase tournaments of a format which is less popular in the first place. Having more Tests will just reduce their worth even further.

What would be the objective of the test series?
To increase popularity of test cricket?
To add more world champion trophy's to your collection?

Its a bit wierd that Australia want this format and then they are reluctant to tour the subcontinent(except India).
And Pakistan would have a the double disadvantage of not being able to host games(local support & money).

Bull****.

 

[Craig]

Australia is due to tour Bangladesh in 2011. They are meant to go to Pakistan in 2012 (won't happen IMO, unless the situation has changed there) and probably Sri Lanka as well.

Future Tours Program if you don't believe me

 

[Hurricane]

I don't have any solutions to the money sharing issues. But I was a big fan of having a test championship even though my own country NZ would have been eliminated from the running early in the process. Watching someone, anybody, get a century to win the world test championship final would have been classic. Dropped catches would have been talked about for years.

 

[sirdj]

Bull****.

Oh yeah, how many times has australia been to the subcontinent (minus India) in the last decade? Compare that with their tours to NZ, SA, Eng, WI, Zim.

 

[brockley]

We hardly tour zimbabwe.
Played a 1 test match series in zimbabwe a long long timr ago,not played them in 6 years to be honest,and with our stance on zimbabwe hardly likely too.
Yes we are due in srilanka,pakistan tests will be played in england next season.
Too impossible to tour pakistan now,too many suicicde attacks going on.