Packer Vs. Dalmiya

[social]

And that's such a bad thing, isn't it ? How can BCCI even try to do that ?



And I thought BCCI positions were honorary.



And that must be a bad thing, isn't it ?



If you are going to make this kind of claim, please be truthful and report the entire story. Govt of India proposed to withraw tax exemption from all sporting institutions and not just BCCI alone.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/03/10/stories/2002031001200300.htm
Also read - http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135046.html



From teh above link :-

"...As of now, BCCI was required to spend 75 per cent of its annual earnings on the game itself or accumulate and spend the aggregate of such amount over five years. The balance 25 per cent was free reserves. Consequent upon the amendment, there shall be no income tax-exempted free reserve."...

We're talking about legacies - Dalmiya has undoubtedly been succesful in creating a financial powerhouse in the BCCI.

However, it would seem that determining the best use for money raised is not his strong suit.

As for the free reserve issue, what was untruthful about my statement.

The BCCI has elected to spend 75% on cricket related activities and 25% is at their discretion - theyre a cricketing body, why not 100%?

 

[C_C]

However, it would seem that determining the best use for money raised is not his strong suit.

Perhaps.
But it still beats the pants of Packer, who pocketed the entire money (ie, profits) while under Dalmiya some of the money ends up going for cricket's development.
No contest really.

 

[C_C]

Check your facts - all test playing countries are party to an agreement that obligates them to play each other a certain no. of times, both home and away, in a predetermined period.

For whatever reason, the BCCI have ignored this in regards to Banladesh

I suggest you check your's.
Regardless of the minimum stipulation, fact remains that India has played Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,Zimbabwe, etc far more often than Australia has (and thus aided in cricket's development there far more than Australia has) and Australia has a history of avoiding playing the minnows more than anyone else in history of the game.
Would you prefer that i pulled up the numbers to how many times Aussies played the Kiwis, Lankans, Bangladesh,Zimboks, etc. compared to India or other major teams and how long did they keep avoiding playing minnows ?
For i assure you - facts are pretty categoric on this regard.

 

[social]

I suggest you check your's.
Regardless of the minimum stipulation, fact remains that India has played Bangladesh, Sri Lanka,Zimbabwe, etc far more often than Australia has (and thus aided in cricket's development there far more than Australia has) and Australia has a history of avoiding playing the minnows more than anyone else in history of the game.
Would you prefer that i pulled up the numbers to how many times Aussies played the Kiwis, Lankans, Bangladesh,Zimboks, etc. compared to India or other major teams and how long did they keep avoiding playing minnows ?
For i assure you - facts are pretty categoric on this regard.

Pull up all the no.s you like plus a copy of the existing agreement if it makes u feel better

 

[social]

Quite true.
Which is why i said Packer was a promoter- not a promoter-***-developer like Dalmiya is/was.
It doesnt matter whether you put in your own money or increase money by improving the fiscal plan of the business- what matters is expanding the business : Something that Dalmiya did far more than Packer. Dalmiya increased the revenue of cricket severalfold more tan Packer did. He made players richer several fold more than Packer did. He also brought the game to people's homes far more than Packer did. These are facts. What also matters is investment in the development nurserys that feed the business- Packer's contribution there is zilch, Dalmiya's is unparallelled.
There is no logical basis on saying Packer contributed as much to cricket as Dalmiya, let alone more. That is nothing more than propaganda that is not supportive of facts.

Who pioneered the commercialisation of television rights, the very thing that feeds the BCCI and others, not to say the grass roots of the game?

Who commercialised ODIs, the single most lucrative component of the cricketing schedule?

Who forced the authorities to pay cricketers a wage sufficient to turn the game into a full-time profession and secured their futures?

There are any no. of executives that could've achieved what Dalmiya has but there's a very good reason why so few people have been able to emulate Packer.

 

[C_C]

Pull up all the no.s you like plus a copy of the existing agreement if it makes u feel better

Will do.
Just remember how long Aussies waited to play the kiwis and how often they played the lankans or the zimboks.
When i do provide the facts, just remember this line : " i told you so"

 

[social]

Will do.
Just remember how long Aussies waited to play the kiwis and how often they played the lankans or the zimboks.
When i do provide the facts, just remember this line : " i told you so"

Great and whilst youre at it, also bring up a copy of the agreement that Oz entered into obligating them to play those sides on a regular basis

 

[archie mac]

It isnt- however, it is a far cry from developing the sport which he gets credit for despite doing nothing at all for glassroot level or development of the game. Packer was good for the game- no doubt though. But Dalmiya was literally Godsent for the game.

Packer had too many Aussie players signed up, and he had them running cricket clinics throughout the country, I went to one myself as a young fellow, they were run very professionally

 

[C_C]

Great and whilst youre at it, also bring up a copy of the agreement that Oz entered into obligating them to play those sides on a regular basis

No they arnt obligated.
But it doesnt change the fact that Australia does very little for the game on a global scale and historically has done very little- this is a fact. So i dont see how you, the rabid Aussie supporter, can make such claims towards India without being a mighty hypocrite.

Who commercialised ODIs, the single most lucrative component of the cricketing schedule?

Most definately Dalmiya in the mid 90s.
ODIs came to the fore in the mid 90s- before that it was still an afterthought to the test series.

And as i said in a previous post- the fact that Packer did it earlier doesnt get him any extra brownie points- otherwise, the question of 'who had more impact' would simply be a question of who came before whom.

There are any no. of executives that could've achieved what Dalmiya has but there's a very good reason why so few people have been able to emulate Packer.

This is a typically ludicrous comment of yours, on par with your distortion of reality.
Infact, promoters who've promoted a game for their own personal business gain, ala Packer, Vince McMahon, Don King, etc. are far more common than administrators who not only bring the commercial side into the story but also the developmental and global outreach aspect of the story.
I'd like you to name a few administrators who oversaw a 1000% increase in sporting revenue and expanded global outreach (such as cricket in Argentina or cricket in mongolia) like Dalmiya did. Not just in cricket but in any sport.

 

[social]

No they arnt obligated.
But it doesnt change the fact that Australia does very little for the game on a global scale and historically has done very little- this is a fact. So i dont see how you, the rabid Aussie supporter, can make such claims towards India without being a mighty hypocrite.



Most definately Dalmiya in the mid 90s.
ODIs came to the fore in the mid 90s- before that it was still an afterthought to the test series.

And as i said in a previous post- the fact that Packer did it earlier doesnt get him any extra brownie points- otherwise, the question of 'who had more impact' would simply be a question of who came before whom.



This is a typically ludicrous comment of yours, on par with your distortion of reality.
Infact, promoters who've promoted a game for their own personal business gain, ala Packer, Vince McMahon, Don King, etc. are far more common than administrators who not only bring the commercial side into the story but also the developmental and global outreach aspect of the story.
I'd like you to name a few administrators who oversaw a 1000% increase in sporting revenue and expanded global outreach (such as cricket in Argentina or cricket in mongolia) like Dalmiya did. Not just in cricket but in any sport.

Before money started pouring into the sub-continent, which two countries propped up the weaker members?

The latest agreement was introduced to ensure that the stronger countries didnt ignore the weaker ones like Aus did to NZ and India is doing to Bangladesh now.

If Dalmiya didnt like it, why sign the agreement in the first place?

As for ODIs, who pioneered coloured clothing, white balls, day-night matches, regular multi-team tournaments, big screens at grounds, cameras from both ends, live coverage of matches from around the globe?

As for administrators having a similar success to Dalmiya, how about we start with Rugby Union - went from amateur to professional, introduced WCs, and sold the first round of TV rights for well in excess of USD$1 billion

The fact is that it simply wasnt that unusual at the time - plentiful credit + rapidly expanding personal income + consumerism + insatiable appetite for content of media barons = huge money for any no. of sports

 

[C_C]

Before money started pouring into the sub-continent, which two countries propped up the weaker members?

England financially almost exclusively.
Playing wise it was England, WI and India way way ahead of Australia.

As for ODIs, who pioneered coloured clothing, white balls, day-night matches, regular multi-team tournaments, big screens at grounds, cameras from both ends, live coverage of matches from around the globe?

Aye. He pioneered a lot of image related stuff.
In other words, he gave the car a nice snazzy paintjob.
Hardly comparable to someone who makes a better car and lays groundwork for better infrastructure.

The fact is that it simply wasnt that unusual at the time

Well i gave you two other names on top of my head similar to Packer. You counter with one example such as Rugby. Either way, it utterly invalidates your previous comment that Dalmiya types are dime a dozen while Packer types are rare.

 

[social]

England financially almost exclusively.
Playing wise it was England, WI and India way way ahead of Australia.



Aye. He pioneered a lot of image related stuff.
In other words, he gave the car a nice snazzy paintjob.
Hardly comparable to someone who makes a better car and lays groundwork for better infrastructure.



Well i gave you two other names on top of my head similar to Packer. You counter with one example such as Rugby. Either way, it utterly invalidates your previous comment that Dalmiya types are dime a dozen while Packer types are rare.

Dalmiya deserves credit for his partial role in breaking the stranglehold that traditional powers had over it

However, Packer didnt just break a stranglehold, he bought the whole friggin game and only gave it back when it was operating on terms more palatable to him, the players and the public - there is a monumental difference

 

[C_C]

Dalmiya deserves credit for his partial role in breaking the stranglehold that traditional powers had over it

However, Packer didnt just break a stranglehold, he bought the whole friggin game and only gave it back when it was operating on terms more palatable to him, the players and the public - there is a monumental difference

Yes there is a monumental difference- one nearly destroyed the game by subverting the stars- the other didnt. One was a pure promoter who jazzed up the game and added a bit of glamour to it. The other invested in the grassroots, expanded cricket's revenue- not just BCCI but also the ICC and spread the sport to hithero unknown shores.
One made sure cricketers didnt need outside sponsorship or 'pretend employment' to make ends meet while the other elavated them to millionaire status.
Monumental difference indeed.

 

[honestbharani]

You're kidding me

Before Packer came along, the average retirement age for a test cricketer was 30!!!!

They couldnt afford to play any longer than that because their bosses wouldnt give them time off.

There was no day--night cricket

No coloured clothing

It was a part-time sport played before miniscule television audiences with horrendous coverage

And Packer funded this revolution with his own money!

He convinced captains of their countries (Chappell, Greig, Lloyd, etc) to give up their positions to further the game (and line their own pockets) by playing on football fields in Australia

Cricket, as we know it, came to an absolute standstill.

Finally, the World Body had to beg him to take the game back but only on the proviso that they treated the players equitably, made them full time pros and gave him the tv rights

Dalmiya who?

social, I do believe that Packer did more than Dalmiya for cricket, but honestly, Dalmiya who?...

you amaze me, mate. Dalmiya did a LOT for the game and def. made the game richer than his predecessors did. He used the cricket craze in India really well.


Having said that, Packer started it all, basically. Dalmiya just took his ideas and made them bigger, more than anything else. In terms of money to the cricketers, both of them are on the same boat. I am sure Packer got them really good pay for that time and Dalmiya did the same during his time. But the fact is Packer's ideas revolutionised the way cricket (basically OD cricket) was played at the time. Had Dalmiya invented 20-20, we would have a closer poll, IMHO.

 

[social]

Yes there is a monumental difference- one nearly destroyed the game by subverting the stars- the other didnt. One was a pure promoter who jazzed up the game and added a bit of glamour to it. The other invested in the grassroots, expanded cricket's revenue- not just BCCI but also the ICC and spread the sport to hithero unknown shores.
One made sure cricketers didnt need outside sponsorship or 'pretend employment' to make ends meet while the other elavated them to millionaire status.
Monumental difference indeed.

Destroyed the game?

Are u kidding me?

Dont believe the pr of the gin and tonic set - the game was popular before, during and after WSC

As for expanding the game, name one market that has been tapped successfully in the last 20 years - if anything, we're on the verge of losing Zimbabwe and the BCCI is already trying to reduce the no. of teams at the next Champions Trophy

The only reason cricket gets watched by more people in more parts of the world now is because you have large expat communities who'll pay for satellite tv so that they can watch cricket whilst living in Abu Dhabi or Shanghai or Frankfurt. And guess who the largest provider of that form of media is. Yep, you guessed it, another Australian - Rupert Murdoch

And why dont you please tell me where all this grass roots investment is?

Many countries are bemoaning the fact that they're struggling to produce young players because there is no grass roots investment.

As for creating millionaires, the vast majority of top cricketer's income is produced by endorsements.

Companies endorse cricketers because of the exposure they get in the media.

Packer introduced commercial tv to the game and the vast majority of commercial tv is owned by another Australian

How Dalmiya fits into that equation is quite beyond me

In any event, surely you have heard of relative purchasing power?

I dare say that a cricketer earning $500,000 p.a. today is substantially worse off than one earning $150,000 p.a. in '78 under Packer.

 

[C_C]

As for expanding the game, name one market that has been tapped successfully in the last 20 years - if anything, we're on the verge of losing Zimbabwe and the BCCI is already trying to reduce the no. of teams at the next Champions Trophy

Singapore, Sharjah, Malaysia, Hong Kong (regular event these days) and far flung corners of the globe.
Loss of zimbabwe has far less to do with cricketing reasons than political and as such, cricketing authorities cannot be held accountable for that.

Are u kidding me?

No i am not. Hijacking the best players in any sport is a threat to the survival of that sport.

And why dont you please tell me where all this grass roots investment is?

subcontinent, caribbean etc. have seen far more stadiums and clinics such as MRF pace foundations etc. pop up under the watch of Dalmiya.

As for creating millionaires, the vast majority of top cricketer's income is produced by endorsements.

And that endorsement aspect is a creation of Dalmiya by commercialising cricket.

How Dalmiya fits into that equation is quite beyond me

I know. Lot of common sense stuff are beyond you. Not surprised. It has been categorically demonstrated where Dalmiya comes in all this - inoguration of several stadiums in the subcontinent and providing funding for stadiums in places like Caribbean.
Support of cricket in the Americas, turning of Dubai, Singapore, HK, etc into sustainable commercial venues. Massive increase in capital earned through cricket. Massive increase in reach. Massive increase in opening of cricket clinics and coaching centres worldwide.
Almost everything Packer did,Dalmiya did it on far greater scale while enriching cricket's grassroots - something Packer didnt give a toss about. Only thing Packer has is precedence. But as i explained earlier - this isnt a debate on scientific discoveries and inventions- its about Marketing- where precedence is irrelevant because all ideas are just simply borrowed and evolved ideas from someone else. Dalmiya owes Packer for doing it before him just as Packer owes someone else for giving him the idea and applying it to cricket ( FYI, it was Stanley Rous who gave Packer the idea. My spelling of his name may be off but i think you'd have heard his name)

I dare say that a cricketer earning $500,000 p.a. today is substantially worse off than one earning $150,000 p.a. in '78 under Packer.

What you dare say is correct. Except it is a misrepresentation of the facts- 1-5 million earning today is substantially better than 150,000 p.a in 78 or even right after WWII.
Relative PPP hasnt increased by 10 folds in the last 50 years. Nice try to obfuscate the facts again.

Packer introduced commercial tv to the game and the vast majority of commercial tv is owned by another Australian

Thats right. Packer introduced. As in ushured in. As in made the first dot in the radar map.
Dalmiya advanced it far far beyond what Packer did. As i said in a similar analogy- Packer turned the kitchen into a restaurant while Dalmiya turned a restaurant into a multinational chain.

Dont believe the pr of the gin and tonic set - the game was popular before, during and after WSC

Yes i am aware of this. Which is why Packer's impact on popularity is minimal. However, under Dalmiya, cricket became a global presence and viewership increased manyfolds. Popularity went up many folds.
Easy to see who owns who here.
And Murdoc is irrelevant to this conversation- it is to do with Packer and Dalmiya.
Not every single Aussie vs Dalmiya though for a while in the 80s it was similar and Dalmiya certainly did come out on top.

Facts show that everything Packer did, Dalmiya did it on a far bigger scale while also setting up and improving cricketing infrastructure- something that Packer has no claims to whatsoever.

 

[social]

Singapore, Sharjah, Malaysia, Hong Kong (regular event these days) and far flung corners of the globe.
Loss of zimbabwe has far less to do with cricketing reasons than political and as such, cricketing authorities cannot be held accountable for that.



No i am not. Hijacking the best players in any sport is a threat to the survival of that sport.



subcontinent, caribbean etc. have seen far more stadiums and clinics such as MRF pace foundations etc. pop up under the watch of Dalmiya.



And that endorsement aspect is a creation of Dalmiya by commercialising cricket.



I know. Lot of common sense stuff are beyond you. Not surprised. It has been categorically demonstrated where Dalmiya comes in all this - inoguration of several stadiums in the subcontinent and providing funding for stadiums in places like Caribbean.
Support of cricket in the Americas, turning of Dubai, Singapore, HK, etc into sustainable commercial venues. Massive increase in capital earned through cricket. Massive increase in reach. Massive increase in opening of cricket clinics and coaching centres worldwide.
Almost everything Packer did,Dalmiya did it on far greater scale while enriching cricket's grassroots - something Packer didnt give a toss about. Only thing Packer has is precedence. But as i explained earlier - this isnt a debate on scientific discoveries and inventions- its about Marketing- where precedence is irrelevant because all ideas are just simply borrowed and evolved ideas from someone else. Dalmiya owes Packer for doing it before him just as Packer owes someone else for giving him the idea and applying it to cricket ( FYI, it was Stanley Rous who gave Packer the idea. My spelling of his name may be off but i think you'd have heard his name)



What you dare say is correct. Except it is a misrepresentation of the facts- 1-5 million earning today is substantially better than 150,000 p.a in 78 or even right after WWII.
Relative PPP hasnt increased by 10 folds in the last 50 years. Nice try to obfuscate the facts again.



Thats right. Packer introduced. As in ushured in. As in made the first dot in the radar map.
Dalmiya advanced it far far beyond what Packer did. As i said in a similar analogy- Packer turned the kitchen into a restaurant while Dalmiya turned a restaurant into a multinational chain.



Yes i am aware of this. Which is why Packer's impact on popularity is minimal. However, under Dalmiya, cricket became a global presence and viewership increased manyfolds. Popularity went up many folds.
Easy to see who owns who here.
And Murdoc is irrelevant to this conversation- it is to do with Packer and Dalmiya.
Not every single Aussie vs Dalmiya though for a while in the 80s it was similar and Dalmiya certainly did come out on top.

Facts show that everything Packer did, Dalmiya did it on a far bigger scale while also setting up and improving cricketing infrastructure- something that Packer has no claims to whatsoever.

Cricket has been played in all the centres you named for decades and was introduced by the British

However, to give credit where it's due, Dalmiyah did lose Sharjah during his time in control and Dubai hasnt even got a stadium of any note (UAE's stadium is in Abu Dhabi - a gift to expat workers from Sheikh Zayed that had precisely zero to do with Dalmiya)

The only thing that had its' survival threatened during the Packer years was the ICC - cricket moved on, as did Packer

"Under the watch of Dalmiya" seems to be an all encompassing term but like all generalisations is not strictly correct.

The original funding for the MRF pace academy came from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (funny that) at the urging of, amongst others, Dennis Lillee

MRF is a diversified conglomerate that initially escaped bat advertising loopholes by producing bats exclusively for Tendulkar (subsequently struck deals with Waugh and Lara amongst others). It has now branched into sponsoring the academy

Construction of stadiums in places such as the Carribean was a pre-condition to them winning WC bid. The majority, if not all, funding has come from locals. It's like claiming that the IOC should receive acclaim for the construction of the Sydney Olympic Stadium - they required it but had naff-all to do with it.

Finally as for relative purchasing power, I dont know where you live but the price of real estate (and virtually evrything else) has increased significantly more than 1000% since 1978.

Not that I know why youre quoting $1.5 mill anyway - only way cricketers earn that sort of money is via endorsements and for that they have to thank the commercialisation of the game introduced by Kerry Francis Bullimore Packer R.I.P

Over and out

 

[C_C]

Cricket has been played in all the centres you named for decades and was introduced by the British

On a strictly amatuer level- and i dont recall the british EVER introducing cricket at Sharjah.
Dalmiya made them not only into commercially sustainable venues but also helped set up the basic governance of cricket in an organised fashion there.

However, to give credit where it's due, Dalmiyah did lose Sharjah during his time in control

Sharjah isnt lost-its just blackballed currently due to matchfixing controversy. Suffice to say, cricket will be back there.

The only thing that had its' survival threatened during the Packer years was the ICC - cricket moved on, as did Packer

Cricket is ICC, just as football is FIFA, hockey is NHL and tennis is ATP/WTA.

Dubai hasnt even got a stadium of any note

Yeah. They just play on the beach.

The original funding for the MRF pace academy came from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (funny that) at the urging of, amongst others, Dennis Lillee

The setup and logistics of which, FYI, was done by Dalmiya. He was the organiser for it- and organisers are the one who deserve most of the credit.

Construction of stadiums in places such as the Carribean was a pre-condition to them winning WC bid.

Again- half truths. The stadium at Bassejeur was helped largely by the BCCI in logistics.

The majority, if not all, funding has come from locals.

Categorically false. Most of the funding in infrastructure construction has come from the ICC- which gets it from India and the it was set up by -you guessed it - Dalmiya.
Both Brian Lara stadium and the new stadium in Guyana are being helped logistically by BCCI and funded by Indian construction companies- a shotlist put together by Dalmiya no less.

Finally as for relative purchasing power, I dont know where you live but the price of real estate (and virtually evrything else) has increased significantly more than 1000% since 1978.

You know f-all about PPP if you think real-estate market is the benchmark for it. And no, prices of most other items in the consumer market have not gone up 1000% in the last 30 years in the western world.

Not that I know why youre quoting $1.5 mill anyway - only way cricketers earn that sort of money is via endorsements and for that they have to thank the commercialisation of the game introduced by Kerry Francis Bullimore Packer R.I.P

No- cricketers have Packer to thank for making them merely self sufficient. They have Dalmiya to thank for commercialising cricket- Packer didnt commercialise cricket- that is a myth. He just hijacked cricket and made a lotta dosh out of it. But players were NOT millionaires or having endorsements left right and center for long after Packer was gone.
That was facilitated by Dalmiya.

 

[GIMH]

I have nothing to add really except that this is the most interesting debate I have read on this board for a long time. Good stuff guys

 

[nightprowler10]

Going around in circles is interesting?