silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
No, the television rights are for ten years. The franchise is permanent. I'll try to find evidence, but I am sure on this point.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
IPL criticisms
- Thread starter pasag
- Start date
grecian
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well can't argue with that
Cevno
Hall of Fame Member
Mate i have lived in manchester for 7 years and have gone to old trafford almost hundred times,so i understand the english football structure.
You can claim anything you like about how english clubs being different but the fact remains that the fanbase of say the chicago bucks is similar to the fanbase of queens park rangers.
As for traditions ,how do you reckon when the league is starting this year it can have the tradition of english football which is going on for 130-140 years or the NBA?
As for milten keyne dons being the most hated because they moved to milton keynes ,it is probably true but then just because they changed their name from wimbledon to milton keynes they stopped being a club they turned into a franchise?
Then what about chelsea, manchester city,arsenal,mancheste united are they not franchises too?
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Milton Keynes is a damn sight better than every other place I've been to that's within 100 miles of London.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Yeah, they stopped being a club and became a US-sport style franchise. The other clubs you mention may be ran as businesses nowadays but they have stayed in their roots, Chelsea and United still play at the same ground they have for as long as I can remember and all four clubs still play in the places that they are representing
howardj
International Coach
Besides my passionate dislike of Twenty20 (a game which has no ebb and flow and no premium attached to any one act) I have a real problem with sport when money is the number one motivation (as distinct from a motivation). Applying the 'but for' test - but for money, would any of the overseas players be interested in travelling around India for 42 days playing in a format which several have said they dislike? Further, how do you relate to a team that's been cobbled together based on nothing more than an auction? Relatedly, with the World XI matches two years ago, we've all seen how very little it actually means to the players when they are placed in a team that they have no prior association or links with.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, we'll see about that. Obviously, if the players show indifference, the venture won't last too long (as that Super Series rubbish didn't). Mind, on the other hand, the sums involved might possibly persuade them to motivate themselves.
BTW, if you dislike Twenty20 why've you never joined the Society?
BTW, if you dislike Twenty20 why've you never joined the Society?
Jamee999
Hall of Fame Member
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
This is way OT and forgive me, but George, go make some posts in Dev League ffs.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
So Great Birtannia is called Syd? Learn summat new every day.
Seriously, pretty much the reaction I'd have expected.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Well, no, but even by missing tour matches (especially given how often one reads nowadays about touring sides being "undercooked" for series due to the lack of games outside of the tests) it's arguably already having an effect on NZ's competitiveness as a side. There's no way on earth 20/20 thrashes in India are good preparation for a test series in the early English summer.
& if any board is serious about retaining a player's services they probably won't try to stop them playing in the IPL.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
That's conjecture, and as people pointed out, other leagues have it much worse. The other option would be to limit it to Indian players only.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Well, durr. It's not unsupportable or unreasonable tho, is it? The NZ board is hardly likely to forbid its players from playing in the IPL due to the financial rewards on offer. If they tried to I suspect we'd see a few more international retirements.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
I'd probably disagree with that. They'll just schedule their matches around IPL.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I asked this to SST a few days back Brumby, but who is your anger aimed at here?
I can't help but feel that because this is occuring in India, there is a bit of bitterness occuring from some, and I'm not aiming this at you specifically.
The fact that these teams will be representing Indian cities, and not Australian or English regions has IMO been a reality check to some. Indian cricket has the money to throw around, and they've chosen to do something which:
a) gives their fans something they want
b) will help Indian cricket, through exposure to the top players
c) will entice other players to want to go to India and play, due to the money they receive (which is well deserved considering what other sports pay their players)
There are examples of corporatism all over cricket, and until a player misses out on playing for their country due to IPL, all these arguments are a little panicky.
In the end, all this is is a domestic league, with the main difference being the players are being offered money via auction, and the money happens to be bigger.
If Dave Hussey in the end chooses the IPL over his domestic contract with his English country, that's his choice.
If the IPL thrives through viewership and interest, then the people have spoken, and it'll not only be a success, but a direction in which the game was destined to be taken.
I can't help but feel that because this is occuring in India, there is a bit of bitterness occuring from some, and I'm not aiming this at you specifically.
The fact that these teams will be representing Indian cities, and not Australian or English regions has IMO been a reality check to some. Indian cricket has the money to throw around, and they've chosen to do something which:
a) gives their fans something they want
b) will help Indian cricket, through exposure to the top players
c) will entice other players to want to go to India and play, due to the money they receive (which is well deserved considering what other sports pay their players)
There are examples of corporatism all over cricket, and until a player misses out on playing for their country due to IPL, all these arguments are a little panicky.
In the end, all this is is a domestic league, with the main difference being the players are being offered money via auction, and the money happens to be bigger.
If Dave Hussey in the end chooses the IPL over his domestic contract with his English country, that's his choice.
If the IPL thrives through viewership and interest, then the people have spoken, and it'll not only be a success, but a direction in which the game was destined to be taken.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I'm not angry.
If you read my first post I actually suggested that some good might come of it, albeit accidentally. I'll probably even watch it if it's shown over here as I'm more of a 20/20 fan than some of the posters leaping to the IPL's defence. Its craven commerciality rubs me up the wrong way (and that's true of the EPL too, as it goes), but others don't seem to mind which is fair enough. Denying that it's primarily a money-inspired venture is naive tho, IMHO.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Sorry, anger was probably the wrong term.
And money is the central objective obviously (I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise), rather the other aspects/benefits I listed are some good which will come of it. And end justifies the means in a way.
I tend to think that something like this had to be done to change the way the game was going. People will argue that cricket has been fine for however number of years, but when I switch on a test match held in South Africa, New Zealand of WI and see empty stands, I know there is a problem.
People criticise sub-continental fans for supporting ODIs over tests, but other than Australia and England, I reckon test cricket watching has fallen pretty much everywhere else. What this means is less money and interest in the game, and hence less people becoming cricketers, particularly in countries such as WI and NZ.
IPL can help that. Obviously T20 cricket played by franchises isn't going to increase the interest in test cricket, but what it will do is encourage kids to want to play cricket ahead of rival sports (again, not such an issue in India and Australia, and to an extent England) because the money and fame is on a similar footing, or will be in the future.
Also, regarding the commercialisation of the game, I think its naive to think that:
a) cricket was going to survive without falling into commercialisation like other sports such as basketball, gridiron, soccer worldwide.
b) that cricket wasn't a victim of commercialisation anyway.
And money is the central objective obviously (I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise), rather the other aspects/benefits I listed are some good which will come of it. And end justifies the means in a way.
I tend to think that something like this had to be done to change the way the game was going. People will argue that cricket has been fine for however number of years, but when I switch on a test match held in South Africa, New Zealand of WI and see empty stands, I know there is a problem.
People criticise sub-continental fans for supporting ODIs over tests, but other than Australia and England, I reckon test cricket watching has fallen pretty much everywhere else. What this means is less money and interest in the game, and hence less people becoming cricketers, particularly in countries such as WI and NZ.
IPL can help that. Obviously T20 cricket played by franchises isn't going to increase the interest in test cricket, but what it will do is encourage kids to want to play cricket ahead of rival sports (again, not such an issue in India and Australia, and to an extent England) because the money and fame is on a similar footing, or will be in the future.
Also, regarding the commercialisation of the game, I think its naive to think that:
a) cricket was going to survive without falling into commercialisation like other sports such as basketball, gridiron, soccer worldwide.
b) that cricket wasn't a victim of commercialisation anyway.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
My only real problem is the length of the tournament, for a Twenty20 tournament 6 weeks is a lifetime, particularly when there's only 8 teams. This also means of course it'll be harder to fit international cricket around it and it's more likely players will miss out on part of the tournament which isn't ideal. I don't really care about the franchise element to it as long as you don't expect me to support one of them, at least the whole thing is largely transparent and it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't.