• 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 vs state

B

brockley

International Captain
IPL revises terms for overseas players

Ajay S Shankar

November 16, 2009

Text size: A | A
Lalit Modi wants players to choose their IPL franchise over their domestic team in case of a clash of commitments © Getty Images



Related Links
Series/Tournaments: Indian Premier League
Teams: India

The IPL has initiated steps to ensure that all cricketers who have been contracted by its franchises are available to play for the entire season from next year, except those with international commitments. This effectively means that players in this category, and their national boards, will have to put the IPL ahead of their domestic commitments.

A press release issued on Monday said that in case of a default, the IPL will impose penalties on such players, including termination of player contracts and a ban on future participation, although Lalit Modi, the league's chairman, told Cricinfo that this would only happen in a worst-case scenario.

In what can be seen as a two-pronged deterrent, the IPL, which is owned by BCCI, will also ask the governing council of the Champions League Twenty20, comprising senior officials from India, Australia and South Africa, to take "appropriate action" against participating national boards in that tournament if they don't issue an IPL clearance for their players citing domestic commitments as a reason. While an IPL ban will affect players directly, any sanction on participating in the Champions League will impact the national board, which gets a share of the money from the organisers apart from an appearance fee for its competing domestic team.

However, the IPL said that this move does not cover players with international commitments and those who will play in matches scheduled under the ICC's Future Tours Programme (FTP) during the tournament. These decisions were finalised during the league's workshop in Bangkok last week to ensure that the IPL franchises get their best players, who have been paid huge amounts by the teams, to be part of the league.


"The IPL will work with all the cricket boards to ensure that cricketers contracted with the eight franchises are available for the season," Modi told Cricinfo. "The IPL 2010 season is in March-April, when a lot of domestic domestic tournaments will still be on. This is a one-off situation. The IPL requires No-Objection Certificates from the home boards for players to participate in IPL. This was essentially done to protect the FTP commitments. However, this (NOC) does not include domestic tournaments. A worst-case scenario could mean penalties on such players, including termination of contracts, jeopardising future participation. However, we do not want to walk that path and are hopeful to sort this through discussions with the boards."

The next IPL will be held from March 12 to April 25, instead of the usual April-May slot, to avoid a clash with the ICC World Twenty20 that starts soon after. However, this advanced IPL schedule clashes with the Australian domestic season, which ends on March 23, and the South African season that ends on March 28. Players from both these countries are among the most sought-after in the Indian league. The Australian cricketers will then be busy with the New Zealand series that ends on March 31.

Apparently, the IPL wants to adopt the model of the Champions League Twenty20, which ensured that the best players from the top domestic teams from the seven participating countries (India, Australia, South Africa, England, West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand) were available for the multi-nation club tournament. "Given that this was also the founding principle of the Champions League Twenty20, it was agreed that in the event any of the member boards not issuing an NOC to their players for participation in the IPL, on the pretext of domestic engagements, IPL could make a representation to the governing council of the Champions League for taking appropriate action against the members boards' participation in the League," the IPL release stated.

The BCCI, Cricket Australia and Cricket South Africa are founding partners of the Champions League and its governing council comprises Lalit Modi, its chairman, Niranjan Shah, its vice-chairman, N Srinivasan, the BCCI secretary, James Sutherland, the CA chief executive, Dean Kino, CA's business and legal affairs head, and Gerald Majola, CSA's chief executive.

The IPL press release added that the measures discussed at the workshop in case of a no-show by the players include "termination of player contracts and barring from future participation in the IPL, of players that have signed contracts, but fail to make themselves available for playing in the IPL.


"This will exclude any instances wherein players would have international and FTP commitments and was aimed at ensuring that players make themselves available for the IPL post their FTP commitments, especially, since such players would have already received a player release to play in the IPL from their respective boards."
Ajay Shankar is a deputy editor at Cricinfo
 
G.I.Joe

G.I.Joe

International Coach
This is such a stupid move. What are the franchises going to do with 4 internationals sitting on the bench, given that they all have atleast 8 on their rosters, and only 4 can play at a time? They'd have to pay them all, makes little sense.
 
B

brockley

International Captain
I laugh cricket australia and cricket s africa will have to sanction tough lines on themselves because its their domestic players who are the question of release.
So cricket australia rebukes cricket s africa and vice verce then themselves,this is a joke.
I am waiting on cricket australia and cricket south africas response to this ipl tough line.
As if either have anything to do with ipl.:laugh:
 
chaminda_00

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Could make a joke of the domestic finals in Australia. With sides sending out their 2nd XI to play in Shield finals. If NSW and Victoria make the final we could see these amazing sides, if the likes of Smith, McKay, Hughes, Bollinger and Jaques get signed up.

NSW: Mail, Khawaja, Forrest, Rohrer, Daniel Smith, Adam Crosthwaite, O'Keefe, Lambert, Clark, Starc, Hazlewood

VIC: Jewell, Rogers, Marsh, Quiney, Finich, Hill, Wade, Wright, Hastings, Pattinson, McGain,
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
Any player choosing to play IPL over a shield final should be banned by Cricket Australia.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
Is it? Or would it be a choice with quite stiff consequences?

If CA sign up for that, they should be impeached. Fail to see how its CA or CSA's problem that IPL wants to move out of its original window - that window was agreed upon for a reason. How much are we going to let this tail wag the dog?
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
No, they want to convince the boards to make that decision, so if you're contracted with the IPL, CA would tell you to go do that instead. Players miss domestic cricket for county cricket all the time, don't see the big deal.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Hall of Fame Member
Not in the southern hemisphere because the two seasons don't overlap. So it would be a massive departure in the countries that sound like they're more likely to be affected, at the business end of the domestic season.

Would be interesting. Say Victoria makes the Shield final and Cameron White or Brad Hodge want to play for Victoria to try and win a Shield rather than go to IPL, and declined to accede to CA's direction. Would/could CA punish them for them insisting on playing for their State team?
 
Last edited:
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah, surely eventually the IPL/Modi will ask for too much.

One can get too greedy. They've got what they wanted so far, but jeez.

Much better if the players are left to decide. If they want to choose their IPL team because it'll get them more money and put them in the good books with the franchise, that's their decision. But if a plater wants to play their own nation's domestic season... let them do that!
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Jono said:
Yeah, surely eventually the IPL/Modi will ask for too much.

One can get too greedy. They've got what they wanted so far, but jeez.

Much better if the players are left to decide. If they want to choose their IPL team because it'll get them more money and put them in the good books with the franchise, that's their decision. But if a plater wants to play their own nation's domestic season... let them do that!
Click to expand...
But they do have that choice. If you want an IPL contract, you should play for the IPL. Guys like Clarke have decided against the IPL, and maybe more will in the future, and more power to them.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I think we'll continue to see more and more of players not being called up to the IPL squads during the actual carnival to keep costs at a minimum.

As such, only those players who will play regularly in the IPL will be pulled away from their state sides. And there's only a small handful.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
silentstriker said:
But they do have that choice. If you want an IPL contract, you should play for the IPL. Guys like Clarke have decided against the IPL, and maybe more will in the future, and more power to them.
Click to expand...
Well let the contract determine what the player has to do.

If you have someone that good at T20 (say Hodge or Duminy or something), and the IPL franchise badly wants him... let them put into the contract that he must put IPL ahead of any other domestic duty.

If he agrees, then he can take the money and that's fine as far as I'm concerned. But if the player doesn't want to do that, but rather wants to play for his national domestic team when he can... then that should be find providing the franchise are still willing to have him whenever they can (again, because he's that good).

As far as I'm concerned, Modi should have no part. Let the franchises decide whether they're willing to have players (be it for their skill or marketing) at only limited times.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Jono said:
Well let the contract determine what the player has to do.

If you have someone that good at T20 (say Hodge or Duminy or something), and the IPL franchise badly wants him... let them put into the contract that he must put IPL ahead of any other domestic duty.

If he agrees, then he can take the money and that's fine as far as I'm concerned. But if the player doesn't want to do that, but rather wants to play for his national domestic team when he can... then that should be find providing the franchise are still willing to have him whenever they can (again, because he's that good).

As far as I'm concerned, Modi should have no part. Let the franchises decide whether they're willing to have players (be it for their skill or marketing) at only limited times.
Click to expand...
The reason Modi is doing that has to be on the behest of the franchises. I don't think he is doing this without any input from the individual owners. They want a collective rule that if someone signs, they are available barring national duties.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Such things like this further proves the ICC NEDDDDDSS toreamped into a proper governing body or world cricket. The BCCI & Modi power in the game is getting over bearing now, the line has to drawn somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top