Your solution to the BCCI - ICL standoff?

[Uppercut]

I don't buy that. Maybe a little less, but I am not sure if the return on investment on overseas players is at all worth it, consideing how much more they cost compared to local players. We'll see in a few years once the business settles down and the owners think about optimizing their product. Would the profitability be any less if they just had one overseas mega star per team? I would doubt it.

Completely disagree, if anything overseas players are heavily underpriced due to the four-per-team rule. IMO it would be so much less appealing without overseas players it would be untrue. What would be the difference between it and any other domestic T20 competition if that weren't the case?

That's ridiculous. I wasn't aware of any checks counties sent out to national boards for playing in county cricket. If they tried it and IPL barred overseas players, players from every country would be pretty pissed, and rightly so.

Overseas players don't increase the profitability of county cricket, which is an investment in the English cricket team that runs at a considerable loss AFAIK. The IPL is a money-spinner that's heavily reliant on players developed overseas- players that had benefited from this investment in their country's FC system, in many cases making them the superstars they are. So why shouldn't the administrators feel hard done by if their years of money and effort end up making a fortune for a rival cricket board while they receive nothing?

 

[silentstriker]

Completely disagree, if anything overseas players are heavily underpriced due to the four-per-team rule. IMO it would be so much less appealing without overseas players it would be untrue. What would be the difference between it and any other domestic T20 competition if that weren't the case?

Nothing. It's not any different - it is just another domestic T20 competition. That's the point. The proposed Champions League is the competition that aims to be more, not IPL. The vast majority of the appeal and money that comes from IPL is from India. The TV rights in India sold for a billion, the one in Australia sold for like $10 million. The crowds in India do like the huge stars, but most casual fans have no idea or care for even superstars of Test cricket like Kallis. Like I said, I bet that when the product matures, and they do market research and accurately measure return on investment, I wouldn't be surprised if the limit the overseas players in the squad to 4-5 instead of 8-10.

So why shouldn't the administrators feel hard done by if their years of money and effort end up making a fortune for a rival cricket board while they receive nothing?

It's sort of like saying I should pay taxes to India for the rest of my life because I was born there and they've spent money 'investing' in my youth. You can't deny the players the right to exercise their right to work by holding the employers hostage for funds. I doubt that type of restriction would hold up in English courts.

Overseas players don't increase the profitability of county cricket, which is an investment in the English cricket team that runs at a considerable loss AFAIK.

So if they started making money, they'd all of a sudden owe the other countries money? There was a time when county cricket did make money, did the checks go out then?

 

[susudear]

Lol

To be fair, the IPL is a lot less profitable without overseas players, and other boards deserve at least some share of the humungus cash cow if they're going to let their members play in it.

So you subscribe to the theory that English Premier League should send cheques to the football boards of Argentina, Spain, Germany, Ivory Coast etc etc etc???

 

[Uppercut]

So you subscribe to the theory that English Premier League should send cheques to the football boards of Argentina, Spain, Germany, Ivory Coast etc etc etc???

They send cheques to the clubs, in case you didn't notice.

 

[GIMH]

I don't buy that. Maybe a little less, but I am not sure if the return on investment on overseas players is at all worth it, consideing how much more they cost compared to local players. We'll see in a few years once the business settles down and the owners think about optimizing their product. Would the profitability be any less if they just had one overseas mega star per team? I would doubt it.



That's ridiculous. I wasn't aware of any checks counties sent out to national boards for playing in county cricket. If they tried it and IPL barred overseas players, players from every country would be pretty pissed, and rightly so.

IPL would gain no interest outside of India if the stars weren't playing, and I dare say a lot of interest has been gained within India thanks to the overseas stars. Otherwise the BCCI wouldn't be so keen on getting Pietersen & Flintoff over there, but they are, because they are box-office attractions, like a lot of the other players who played last year.

 

[GIMH]

So you subscribe to the theory that English Premier League should send cheques to the football boards of Argentina, Spain, Germany, Ivory Coast etc etc etc???

They send cheques to the clubs, in case you didn't notice.

Precambrian, you are a complete joke, do everyone a favour and stop posting FFS

 

[Richard]

There was a time when county cricket did make money

Yeah, the 1920s. For a long, long time (certainly since the introduction of overseas-players) county cricket has run at a loss.

 

[silentstriker]

IPL would gain no interest outside of India if the stars weren't playing, and I dare say a lot of interest has been gained within India thanks to the overseas stars.

But, IPL doesn't make money off you watching, not much anyway. The Champions League is what is supposed to be a world wide phenomena.

Otherwise the BCCI wouldn't be so keen on getting Pietersen & Flintoff over there, but they are, because they are box-office attractions, like a lot of the other players who played last year.

Actually, the BCCI played hardball and wanted them for a large period or nothing precicely because they weren't available when the TV contracts were negotiated (so the price they got was without those stars) so they got no benefit out of it so why should they spend a lot of money on them if they only play a few games? As I said, we'll find out in a couple of years. I personally wouldn't be surprised if they limited the foreign players severely and did not suffer a big setback because of it.

Of course, my predictive powers are....slightly imperfect, so who knows?

 

[zaremba]

Precambrian, you are a complete joke, do everyone a favour and stop posting FFS

Have I missed something?

 

[Richard]

Most of his posts under the susudear account for starters?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Is it common knowledge that Modi and Chandra are good mates?

 

[Sanz]

IPL without the International Superstars is worthless. No disrespect but I think anyone who is arguing otherwise is too far away from reality.

 

[Sanz]

The TV rights in India sold for a billion, the one in Australia sold for like $10 million.

1 Billion amount for the TV rights was for the Global Deal not just India.

 

[vic_orthdox]

1 Billion amount for the TV rights was for the Global Deal not just India.

Thought that was the case. And then they re-sell them off to other nations, yeah?

 

[G.I.Joe]

The Indian players, even the lesser ones outsold the overseas ones comfortably. Tells a story.

 

[honestbharani]

That Indian stars are valuable and are more likely to be available for the entire duration? But everyone knows that..



One of the main attractions of the IPL was that it was the real "super series", as Sangakkara put it... Maybe once some of the other players become better known, they can do without the international stars but at the start up, it is pretty obvious how much they have added to the product.

 

[Uppercut]

The Indian players, even the lesser ones outsold the overseas ones comfortably. Tells a story.

The rules of the tournament are designed to make them more valuable because of Indian quotas.

 

[susudear]

Nyet

The rules of the tournament are designed to make them more valuable because of Indian quotas.

Meh, They were more valuable because they were more saleable.

Quotas or no quotas, Dhoni and Sharma would have fetched their prices.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, that's true too.

 

[Richard]

Is it common knowledge that Modi and Chandra are good mates?

I presume that post is in jest?