BCCI Wants $42 mil from WICB

[_Sam_]

Presume it was the same team that was defending him in the ICC hearing though (Don't remember Anderson ever admitting to anything regarding the physical abuse either). They claimed the wrong level offence that contained nothing regarding physical abuse therefore had nothing to actually back up that level of offence with.

Anyway, back on topic. Like I said that was just something I've heard around so got no official source, although again, I don't see how their would be any way to enforce what team will be sent. As long as it represents the players represent their country there's not much else they can enforce.

 

[grkrama]

(Don't remember Anderson ever admitting to anything either).

India in England 2014 : Anderson admitted to swearing at Jadeja | Cricket News | England v India | ESPN Cricinfo

Presume it was the same team that was defending him in the ICC hearing though

this was a domestic case at best. also that case was done more on for going with the ethics of sports conduct rather than winning, according to IND team anderson pushed and he needed punishment for that, a swearing level offense is nt going to help, this was more of getting the word out rather than winning a case. Though think KP has done a better job.

also when a judgement is bad its the judge who is wrong not the lawyer, indian team didnt loose the case, it was just down right bad judgement by a biased private body.

A legal team for claiming 42 mil is bound to be different.

Like I said that was just something I've heard around so got no official source,

there is bound to be something, do let know if you get some source, im also checking on it.

 

[_Sam_]

India in England 2014 : Anderson admitted to swearing at Jadeja | Cricket News | England v India | ESPN Cricinfo




this was a domestic case at best. also that case was done more on for going with the ethics of sports conduct rather than winning, according to IND team anderson pushed and he needed punishment for that, a swearing level offense is nt going to help, this was more of getting the word out rather than winning a case. Though think KP has done a better job.

also when a judgement is bad its the judge who is wrong not the lawyer, indian team didnt loose the case, it was just down right bad judgement by a biased private body.

A legal team for claiming 42 mil is bound to be different.








there is bound to be something, do let know if you get some source, im also checking on it.

Sorry I meant to say admitting the physical assault. Using words like those mentioned against a fellow player is not a level 3offence and unfortunately a few Indian players word is not proof for an ICC hearing.

Anyway mate, let's leave it there .

Will try my best to find something regarding teams.

 

[PokerAce]

From what I've heard recently, although don't take this for definite, all tour contracts must follow a base contract set by the ICC. Apparently this contains no reference to the quality of participating players. I don't see how if it was in a contract you could regulate it anyway. Those are the best currently available cricketers from the WI and no claims could really be made against that.

I dunno, isn't this the same legal panel that claimed the wrong offence again Jimmy Anderson?

How can WICB have justified a replacement team as being the best WI team. The strongest team was clearly one that was rebelling, and any replacement team would just be a second string side. It would be blatanly obvious to everyone. There was no way WI could justify the replacement side as being the best WI there was.

If the replacement side was the best XI, then why the hell were they not picked in the first place?

 

[_Sam_]

How can WICB have justified a replacement team as being the best WI team. The strongest team was clearly one that was rebelling, and any replacement team would just be a second string side. It would be blatanly obvious to everyone. There was no way WI could justify the replacement side as being the best WI there was.

If the replacement side was the best XI, then why the hell were they not picked in the first place?

"the best currently available cricketers"

The current set of players had made themselves unavailable and therefore by the WICB definition the replacements would be the best currently available West Indian players.

 

[PokerAce]

"the best currently available cricketers"

The current set of players had made themselves unavailable and therefore by the WICB definition the replacements would be the best currently available West Indian players.

Yeah because WICB had messed up the contract. Also you cannot chop and change sides mid way through a tour and most definitely not the entire squad. Its not like the players were retired or something. They were willing to play, only WICB was unable to sort out the issues.

Also changing the squad is no justification for the losses that would ensue anyway. Once a squad has been announced and tickets been sold, you cannot then change the squad. Ppl buy tickets expecting a contest, and if the whole side is changed, then ppl will want their tickets back, and similarly sponsors would say hold on, the series is a no contest, we don't want to pay up as much as we had agreed to earlier expecting better players on display. With a visiting side, not featuring its best players, the value of the series goes down drastically, and its then a series no one wants to sponsor or watch. Hence ppl want their money back and BCCI loses money still.

Changing the squad would still lead to losses financially.

 

[_Sam_]

Yeah because WICB had messed up the contract. Also you cannot chop and change sides mid way through a tour and most definitely not the entire squad. Its not like the players were retired or something. They were willing to play, only WICB was unable to sort out the issues.

Also changing the squad is no justification for the losses that would ensue anyway. Once a squad has been announced and tickets been sold, you cannot then change the squad. Ppl buy tickets expecting a contest, and if the whole side is changed, then ppl will want their tickets back, and similarly sponsors would say hold on, the series is a no contest, we don't want to pay up as much as we had agreed to earlier expecting better players on display. With a visiting side, not featuring its best players, the value of the series goes down drastically, and its then a series no one wants to sponsor or watch. Hence ppl want their money back and BCCI loses money still.

Changing the squad would still lead to losses financially.

Still doesn't mean it breaks anything legally as far as we can find at the moment. Of course there may be some regulations on the quality of the squad (I don't see how that would be regulated however) that we have not found yet.

The sponsors and fans paid for a match between a representative team of India and the West Indies. West Indies send the best team they have currently available into a game. If a group of players refuse to play they are forced to change their squad to which India declined to continue the tour because of. What we don't know is whether India had any ICC regulations/signed contracts on their side when they discontinued the tour or not.

Sponsors and tickets are usually sold/sorted well before an initial squad is announced anyway.

 

[PokerAce]

Still doesn't mean it breaks anything legally as far as we can find at the moment. Of course there may be some regulations on the quality of the squad (I don't see how that would be regulated however) that we have not found yet.

The sponsors and fans paid for a match between a representative team of India and the West Indies. West Indies send the best team they have currently available into a game. If a group of players refuse to play they are forced to change their squad to which India declined to continue the tour because of. What we don't know is whether India had any ICC regulations/signed contracts on their side when they discontinued the tour or not.

Sponsors and tickets are usually sold/sorted well before an initial squad is announced anyway.

Think of it this way, suppose you were told you would go to a race with Usain Bolt (Dwayne Bravo, Pollard, Smith, etc) running. Usain Bolt even lands, but before the race starts he feels he has not been paid enough, and leaves. You go to the race and instead find some replacement runner you have never even heard of. Would you not be entitled to compensation. The sponsors will chew the organisers head off.

Same with any bilateral series. When a squad to tour is announced, you make a commitment that those players will be on display, and then tickets are sold and sponsorship deals agreed upon. Leaving midway hurts all that. You cannot leave once things are agreed and saying we were going to send replacements is not even remotely the same thing. WICB made a commitment to the fans that their best known Int;l stars will be on display and this helped the sale of tickets and drove up the sponsor fees. When players no has has heard of turn up instead, after all this, naturally fans are going to feel cheated and sponsor's refuse to pay as much.

So saying we could have sent a replacement side is no defense.

 

[_Sam_]

Think of it this way, suppose you were told you would go to a race with Usain Bolt (Dwayne Bravo, Pollard, Smith, etc) running. Usain Bolt even lands, but before the race starts he feels he has not been paid enough, and leaves. You go to the race and instead find some replacement runner you have never even heard of. Would you not be entitled to compensation. The sponsors will chew the organisers head off.

Same with any bilateral series. When a squad to tour is announced, you make a commitment that those players will be on display, and then tickets are sold and sponsorship deals agreed upon. Leaving midway hurts all that. You cannot leave once things are agreed and saying we were going to send replacements is not even remotely the same thing. WICB made a commitment to the fans that their best known Int;l stars will be on display and this helped the sale of tickets and drove up the sponsor fees. When players no has has heard of turn up instead, after all this, naturally fans are going to feel cheated and sponsor's refuse to pay as much.

So saying we could have sent a replacement side is no defense.

That's tough unfortunately mate, that kind of situation can occur all the time due to events such as injuries included and in this case it's no different. The paying public have not been sold tickets to see Dwayne Bravo, Pollard, Smith etc. They've payed for tickets to see a West Indies team. Just in as for example you pay for tickets to see the Olympics 100m final, not Usain Bolt.

If it's not in a contract or agreement anywhere then the WICB made no commitment.

 

[PokerAce]

That's tough unfortunately mate, that kind of situation can occur all the time due to events such as injuries included and in this case it's no different. The paying public have not been sold tickets to see Dwayne Bravo, Pollard, Smith etc. They've payed for tickets to see a West Indies team. Just in as for example you pay for tickets to see the Olympics 100m final, not Usain Bolt.

If it's not in a contract or agreement anywhere then the WICB made no commitment.

Injuries is one thing, but to go out on a payment dispute with the board another thing entirely. Before you made the commitment you should have made sure the finances were in order.

Also don't kid yourself that who the players are doesnt affect if the fans want to go see the match or not. Send a WI team of XI players no one has heard of and see if anyone cares for that match. Who all will be on display matters. When WI announce their side they made an implied commitment that those will be the players who will be playing. The fans can then decide whether they want to go and watch a WI team comprising of these players play or not.

Same in your example of 100 m final is terrible, because maybe some fans wanna just watch some athletics, but some don't care for athletics in general and only wanna go watch because they are fans of Bolt. If Bolt doesn't show up, over a payment dispute, after you have been promised he will, its fraud. As simple as that.

WI made a commitment to the fans and BCCI that their top players will play in the series, when they announced the squad. Before making this implied commitment they should have made sure that WICB had their financials all sorted out.

I cannot tomorrow announce a football match in India featuring between Team 1 and Team 2 football match, and then announce team 1 will feature Messi and Team 2 will feature Ronaldo, and then sell tickets, and have a multi million dollar sponsorship deal and then turn around on the day of the match, and say well there was this payment dispute thing, so instead here are two players you have never fking heard of.

Also since I offered a replacement team you cannot touch me, nor can I say, well you just bought tickets to a football match and not to see Messi and Ronaldo, so you cannot touch me. Just talk sense man.

You cannot announce one side to take part in a series and then replace all of them in the middle of the series and then say, hey you cannot touch me. I offered you replacements. There is such a thing a quality of the product involved too. Also not everything has to be in writing, and there is such a thing a implied contractual aspects, which are as valid as real contracts.

WICB promised a team comprising of Bravo, Pollard, Sammy etc, when they announced the side, did BCCI get Bravo and Sammy and co. - NO. - Liability established.

 

[_Sam_]

Sorry mate, don't agree with you here. WI unless, stated in the agreements made when the series was created, have no obligation to play their best players in a series. That it is a pay dispute makes no difference, the players are unavailable just as they would be if injured, retired, or out of form. A squad is nothing more than a list of names given to the ICC regarding players they are taking with them on a tour and so financial risk should not be put on this. As I said before, the public are paying for a team of people that come from the West Indies and a team of people that come from India. They were never guaranteed anything more.

 

[PokerAce]

Sorry mate, don't agree with you here. WI unless, stated in the agreements made when the series was created, have no obligation to play their best players in a series. That it is a pay dispute makes no difference, the players are unavailable just as they would be if injured, retired, or out of form. A squad is nothing more than a list of names given to the ICC regarding players they are taking with them on a tour and so financial risk should be put on this. As I said before, the public are paying for a team of people that come from the West Indies and a team of people that come from India. They were never guaranteed anything more.

Again its not about best or not. Its about the fact that once you annnounce the squad, ppl buy tickets based on those names, sponsors agree their deal based on who will be on display. Which is why a series featuring Bravo and co. will sell for a lot more than a series featuring 15 WI players no has fking heard of.

You cannot then later not send those players and say well we sent replacements duh!

If you cant see that then I am done with this discussion which has so far been nothing short of the equivalent of banging my head against a wall.

There is a difference between pay disputes and injuries. Injuries you cannot control. Pay disputes you can. Before you make a contractual commitment to send players on a tour (which is what announcing the team is for), you first have to make sure they are willing to go represent you, for the wages you are paying them. You cannot first announce a squad and then later say well we had no agreement to begin with.

Also if you are lame enough to really think this is all alright, here is a great scam for you. Announce there will a match Team 1 vs Team 2. Then announce the teams, Team 1 - Messi, Zidane, Xavi, etc. Team 2 - Ronaldo, Iniesta, Ibra, etc. Then sell tickets, and have a multi million dollar sponsorship deal. Then on the day of the match, tell the crowd, that there was a pay dispute as none of those players were willing to play for the pennies you were offering them, so instead Team 1 and Team 2 will feature you and your friends mucking about for 90 mins.

If any one complains or wants their money back you can offer them your brilliant arguments you have offered so far in the posts, namely -

1) Those players could have been injured and not turned up, so, them not turning up over a payment dispute is really the same thing.
2) WTF are you lot moaning about, I promised you a football match and you bought tickets to a football match and got a football match.
3) I arranged replacement teams so while its not the one I promised you, but after the payment dispute its the strongest one I could arrange, so its all the same thing really.


You would be a millionaire soon !!

 

[_Sam_]

Sorry mate, not taking this discussion any further really then as it's going around in circles. As I said before "the public are paying for a team of people that come from the West Indies and a team of people that come from India. They were never guaranteed anything more." and "A squad is nothing more than a list of names given to the ICC regarding players they are taking with them on a tour and so financial risk should not be put on this. " are my key points. The public were never promised anything other than a game of cricket between two teams with these names.

 

[PokerAce]

Sorry mate, not taking this discussion any further then as it's going around in circles. As I said before "the public are paying for a team of people that come from the West Indies and a team of people that come from India. They were never guaranteed anything more." and "A squad is nothing more than a list of names given to the ICC regarding players they are taking with them on a tour and so financial risk should not be put on this. " are my key points. The public were never promised anything other than a game of cricket between two teams with these names.

Exactly if you really believe this, then go ahead with the brilliant Team 1 vs Team 2 con. By the same logic (!?), the public will be paying to see Team 1 play Team 2. So the fact that you sold tickets in the name of Messi and co. and eventually gave the public you and your friends mucking about for 90 mins something no one can challenge you over.

To use your super super logic in the same situation, The public were never promised anything other than a game of cricket football between two teams with these names (Team 1 and Team 2).

Haha Its the biggest scam in the history of mankind this football match

 

[_Sam_]

Your analogy is hugely out of proportion.

1) The vast majority of these tickets were payed for before the squad was even announced.
2) West Indians cricketers are barely legends of world cricket right now.
3) You and your mates playing a game of football is hardly comparative to professional high class domestic cricketers, the majority of which will already have some international experience and most likely all 2nd team games.
4) The squad was never released as a guarantee to the public. It is meant to be information for the ICC so they could regulate the players and make sure they are all qualified.