Brendon McCullum nearly dumped NZ for IPL

[riz7khan12]

nz doesn't need help with finances we have a strong domestic structure and can afford overseas players to play in them.

 

[War]

nz doesn't need help with finances we have a strong domestic structure and can afford overseas players to play in them.

There is absolutely nothing strong about the NZ domestic strucutre. It has never been strong - since in test history except for the mid/late 80s & late 90s/early 2000s NZs test team has never been a force in test history.

 

[War]

War, you implied that if the ICC was an "independent governing body" that they would be involved in the finances of the weaker boards. There's no connection between the two. The ICC being independent won't mean that they'll be giving money away to WI, NZ, SL, etc.

I never said if the ICC was independent if would be involved in the finances of the weaker boards. I said they would be able to assist them much more in development of academies, youth player development etc with the request of national boards request of course. No bullying would be involved.

Also, what do you mean by "independent"? You seem to throw that word around but please do describe how an organization will be independent from bias with only 10 countries to satisfy?

I dont see why you think if the ICC is revamped to a "independent body" with the 10 other cricket boards being under it how any form of bias to any particular nation would ever occur.

Just like FIFA, IAAF, IOC, IRB. An independent ICC would have its president - then the board memebers of ICC would be representatives from the all the 10 major cricket boards (& possibly some associate nations like Ireland, Zimbabwe, Hollad). The chances of any team board having inadequate power in the came like the BCCI now & the MCC is highly unlikely to happen.

An example here: FIFA Executive Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, even if a hypothetical "independent" utopia existed, the ICC would have no jurisdiction whatsoever to invest in so many different countries. If you are not already aware, all cricket boards are extensions of the country's government. The ICC does not have a right to change that system since each country has a separate governing system in place. And that's not the ICC's problem either, since in every single sport (even your beloved football) the domestic governing body is an extension of the government.

:laugh are you out of your mind. For the majority of the cricket boards they are sporting bodies - TOTALLY INDEPENDENT FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS.

In England here the ECB is totally independent - its has NOTHING to the with the UK government.

I'm fairly sure that the case in AUS & NZ.

Over in South Africa i know at times given the racial history. The government has at times since readmission, has sort of forced the selection of black cricketers/coloured players in the team just for the sake of it. But other than that i dont believe the government involvement in SACB is very big.


Over in Pakistan & SRI yes i believe government has a big influence in selection of teams.

In Windies in the WICB is definately totally independent. Its by no means an extentions of the MANY independent territorial governments in the region there. :doh

Plus WTF :laugh. Yo dont talk about football. FIFA has a STRICT RULE that governments CANT BE INVOLVED IN ANY NATIONAL FOOTBALL FEDERATION.

In the recent world cup when the Nigerian & French football teams where eliminated in the 1st round. The Nigerian government banned the team for 2 years - plus the French president wanted to have an inquiry Frances performance.

Immediately the FIFA president stepped in & spoke the Nigerian government had to drop the ban & the French government have basically abandoned the inquiry. Which is what a strong governing body should do.

Cricket could do with that for sure. It would help in eradicating the the Quota system in SA cricket which made them loose KP & Kieswetter to England & many good players to county cricket. Along with straightening out Pakistans set-up which i've heard Imran Khan himself complain about for years.

Potentially what the ICC could do is give money to the government and hope that they allocate it to cricket. Even then, where is all this money coming from? Making the ICC an "independent governing body" wouldn't magically convert them into a cash cow. There are too many flaws in this argument.

Well as i clarified above governments dont control the majority of the national cricket boards. So clear the cob-webs.

Investment from a potentially "independent" ICC would go straight to the cricket boards.

Finally, when you said "unfortunately in its current state, nothing proper will ever happen", there was a definite implication that because the ICC is not stable from a power standpoint, NZ, SL, WI and the poorer boards are suffering. That's no different from my statement that "a single or minority of boards is causing a developed cricket nations system to suffer". Even if the ICC reached some hypothetical realm where some independent body decided everything (and I assume none of the 10 Test nations would be represented to make it truly independent) none of these problems would be fixed, as I elaborated above. In fact, the fact that wealthy nations do exist have actually helped (at least in Asia, where India is willing to share it's wealth with it's Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi neighbors--something that Australia seems unwilling to do).

Basically when you said "if it was a proper independent governing body as i always say" you are referring to some magical silver bullet that would solve all issues in world cricket, which is something that simply does not and will not exist.

In this current state nothing proper indeed will ever happen & the required pace it needs. Look at the URDS, if the ICC wants to implement it in every series it should have the authority to to do so. But i have seen in alot of series the BCCI declining to use it for test series IND are playing. Thats foolishness.

The lack of control the rise of T20 cricket world-wide in which the ICC has to date has failed to control its rise - thus its treatening the future of test cricket. The fact the Standford, ICL under Kapil Dev & how ridiculously the IPL & Champions League where set-up horrificly exposed how terribly the ICC is structured.

The amount of flat pitches in cricket today. I'm no expert of pitch preperation of course. But ICC should be spending money trying to invest in that for sure - which is a reason why test cricket is suffering in some countries at the expense of ODIs & T20s.

The recent shameful episoide with John Howard being rejected for the post as ICC president. I personally would prefer the ICCs head to be a former cricket or someone who at least spent a lifetime involved in cricket - instead of some politician etc. But if the "ICC" wanted to pick their president they should have as i illustrated above - have its own committee (made up of representatives for all boards) & pick/vote who they want as president.

We dont need cricket boards, with some who have bias againts the man blocking him from being president. Utter foolishness.



Thats what my statement "unfortunately in its current state, nothing proper will ever happen" was directing to - general problems with cricket. I was by no means a DIRECT IMPLICATION that - "that because the ICC is not stable from a power standpoint, NZ, SL, WI and the poorer boards are suffering".

If the ICC was in a stable power standpoint as i mentioned wayyy above they could certainly help in academy & youth development in those nations so we could have 8 strong competitive nations - instead of big gap we have.


Yes India does assit other nations. But given their power in the game, they basically are guaranteed to always vote with the BCCI on everything they want - which is crap.

Australia only has NZ has a neighbour i am fairly sure they help each other out. But ACB dont need to be helping everybody out. You could argue that in other ways such as the amount of foreign AUS coaches that have gone to almost every nation & aided in some way - they have passed on knowledge to all nations.

Finally if the ICC was independent as it should be - no i dont expect EVERY problem in cricket to be eradicated. Every sport has its issues. But the problems that i highlighted above are dumb - basic - structuralproblems that a proper sporting governing body shouldn't have & would/could be dealth with very quickly if the ICC was truly independent.

 

[sohum]

I never said if the ICC was independent if would be involved in the finances of the weaker boards. I said they would be able to assist them much more in development of academies, youth player development etc with the request of national boards request of course. No bullying would be involved.

They can do that even now. The reason they don't is because they don't have enough money. Becoming independent won't make them have more money.

I dont see why you think if the ICC is revamped to a "independent body" with the 10 other cricket boards being under it how any form of bias to any particular nation would ever occur.

You still haven't explained what you mean by an independent body and your whole argument is based around that. Please explain what you mean by an independent body.

Just like FIFA, IAAF, IOC, IRB. An independent ICC would have its president - then the board memebers of ICC would be representatives from the all the 10 major cricket boards (& possibly some associate nations like Ireland, Zimbabwe, Hollad). The chances of any team board having inadequate power in the came like the BCCI now & the MCC is highly unlikely to happen.

Who chooses the president? Basically what you are suggesting is identical to what the ICC is now. It has a president and then it has board members from all the major cricket boards. It's not as if the BCCI chooses who the next ICC president is. Basically, your whole "independent body" argument is flawed unless you can explain how one would achieve independence.

:laugh are you out of your mind. For the majority of the cricket boards they are sporting bodies - TOTALLY INDEPENDENT FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS.

...

Cricket could do with that for sure. It would help in eradicating the the Quota system in SA cricket which made them loose KP & Kieswetter to England & many good players to county cricket. Along with straightening out Pakistans set-up which i've heard Imran Khan himself complain about for years.

You are correct about the national boards, for the most part. What I meant is in cricket, as with any other sport that you are representing your country and are wearing your country's colors, you need clearance from your government to play.

Regardless of the government situation, even if the national boards are private organizations, they are all subject to their specific national laws. This becomes relevant with your South Africa argument and the Pakistan argument. With South Africa, I believe the government of South Africa, or at least the UCBSA internally, has chosen to mandate the quota system because of the country's history with race-related issue. Again, the ICC, independent or not, has no right to go tell someone how to run their show, especially if their are laws protecting against them.

With regards to Pakistan, imagine the scuffle if the ICC tried to mandate how the PCB worked. Similarly, FIFA doesn't actually tell the FA or any regional football board how to work, which is where your analogy with FIFA breaks down. FIFA don't try and build more training centers in India or help our local board (I believe it is the Indian Olympic Association) out, despite us being one of the weaker football nations.

This whole theory that there exists some sort of organizational body that will be independent while keeping the power balanced as well as help weaker countries is completely imaginary. Furthermore, you try to point out FIFA as a system that works when in reality it is structurally very similar to the ICC. Blatter's election as FIFA president is not without controversy, as I'm sure you know. The one difference between the FIFA and the ICC is that the president of FIFA appears to have unilateral power to make any decisions he wants. This works in practice with the FIFA since it is comprised of more than 200 boards. With the ICC, in comparison, decision about international cricket is going to affect only 10 boards, in which case a decision that goes against you is obviously going to get you miffed.

In this current state nothing proper indeed will ever happen & the required pace it needs. Look at the URDS, if the ICC wants to implement it in every series it should have the authority to to do so. But i have seen in alot of series the BCCI declining to use it for test series IND are playing. Thats foolishness.

The reason the UDRS hasn't been implemented in practice is because the technology is not free and because they haven't voted to make it mandatory. The reason is because it is still being implemented on an experimental basis.

The reason they can't make it necessary, yet, is because not all boards can afford them. Especially those boards who can't even afford to pay their players. Sri Lanka, who is hosting India right now, has had a history of not being able to pay their players. How are they going to be able to implement UDRS? If the ICC was made of money it could perhaps invest in the technology for every series. Again, the money aspect is independent of the independence of a board.

The lack of control the rise of T20 cricket world-wide in which the ICC has to date has failed to control its rise - thus its treatening the future of test cricket. The fact the Standford, ICL under Kapil Dev & how ridiculously the IPL & Champions League where set-up horrificly exposed how terribly the ICC is structured.

I don't buy the whole "test cricket is dying" argument one bit. You can read my views on that in several different threads on this forum.

Test cricket has always been the pleasure of cricket's more passionate followers. Ever since ODI cricket was introduced, it always brought in more money and viewership than Test cricket. It's not as if T20 is stealing away massive hordes of Test cricket fans.

The recent shameful episoide with John Howard being rejected for the post as ICC president. I personally would prefer the ICCs head to be a former cricket or someone who at least spent a lifetime involved in cricket - instead of some politician etc. But if the "ICC" wanted to pick their president they should have as i illustrated above - have its own committee (made up of representatives for all boards) & pick/vote who they want as president.

That's essentially what they did! John Howard was the candidate and the representatives of each board were the ones who decided whether or not to accept his candidature. Enough people said no, so it's now time to look for another candidate. It's pretty straightforward.

We dont need cricket boards, with some who have bias againts the man blocking him from being president. Utter foolishness.

What is the purpose of a "representative" from each country, then? If you're going to completely disregard his opinion of a candidate, he might as well not exist in the process.

Yes India does assit other nations. But given their power in the game, they basically are guaranteed to always vote with the BCCI on everything they want - which is crap.

Really, this is a problem of any democracy. I think what you are really looking for is the ICC to become a tyrannical organization, with the ICC president having all power. There are two issues, though. One is who chooses the ICC president. And the second is why would anyone listen to him? Power bubbles will form in any situation where there are votes to be had--it's unavoidable. To pretend that adding the word "independent" to a body will make it free from this is silly.

As soon as you have representatives from boards, there will be alliances forms. It's inevitable. So the only solution is for some autonomous leader to be chosen. Which, in my opinion, would be even worse for cricket since it would alienate portions of the already tiny member nations.

--

To conclude, I think you have a far too pessimistic nature of the ICC and your dislike for the BCCI in conjunction with recent events has lit a fire under your backside.

I think the motto for the ICC should be "just let them play". Honestly, no one gives a crap about any of the backroom politics that happens. I couldn't care less who has more or less power, as long as we can continue seeing the game of cricket, especially now when it is at the peak of it's competition.

This is a great time to have an opinion about cricket--unfortunately most of them are whining about the BCCI or the ICC or some other thing that is tangential to actual cricket. Let's just concentrate on the cricket and forget about all the drivel that happens in the background. It's going to settle itself out just like everything else in the world does.

 

[War]

They can do that even now. The reason they don't is because they don't have enough money. Becoming independent won't make them have more money.

I'm not sure i buy that really - although i know outside of world cups & Champions Trophy (which is the ICC main source of income) - they dont get money in much other ways. The ICC has been wasting money quite foolishly in recent years trying to develop cricket in USA & China & other associate countries.

That money would be better spent trying to assit the poorer cricket boards.

You still haven't explained what you mean by an independent body and your whole argument is based around that. Please explain what you mean by an independent body.


Who chooses the president? Basically what you are suggesting is identical to what the ICC is now. It has a president and then it has board members from all the major cricket boards. It's not as if the BCCI chooses who the next ICC president is. Basically, your whole "independent body" argument is flawed unless you can explain how one would achieve independence.

. You really dont know how the ICC board is structured if you really going to tell me its comparable to FIFA, IOC, IAAF or IRB structure.

These sporting bodies have a president, couple vice-presidents & 10-15 other members which are from all over the world.

This is the ICC structure: International Cricket Council - The ICC - About The Organisation - Staff

Made up of a President, Chief Executive Officer, General Manager - Cricket
General Manager - Commercial, Chief Financial Officer, Head of Legal, Head of Media and Communications, General Manager/Chief Investigator - ACSU, Manager - Global Development, Head of Member Services, Manager - HR & Administration

Dont you see whats wrong with this???. How can you be mixing an executive branch with the financial, legal, communications, development??. Thats ignorance & pretty much proves my point.

The President & CEO in the ICC are just names - they have no power. That decision making power to select presidents & any other decisions that will affect world cricket coems from the various cricket boards. In which currently the BCCI has the most power & influence.

If you understand how FIFA, IOC etc is structured in those links i showed you. It should be fairly easy for you to envision how the ICC would be structured once it became independent.

You are correct about the national boards, for the most part. What I meant is in cricket, as with any other sport that you are representing your country and are wearing your country's colors, you need clearance from your government to play.

:laugh. Nah you changing your point, since your original point was thrashed. You dont need clearance from no national government to represent your country in no sport - because national boards dont have anything to do with government. Especially if sportS governing body make it clear that sports & politics cant mix. Get your facts straight yo...

Regardless of the government situation, even if the national boards are private organizations, they are all subject to their specific national laws. This becomes relevant with your South Africa argument and the Pakistan argument. With South Africa, I believe the government of South Africa, or at least the UCBSA internally, has chosen to mandate the quota system because of the country's history with race-related issue. Again, the ICC, independent or not, has no right to go tell someone how to run their show, especially if their are laws protecting against them.

Im not sure if the SA government actually did that. Because in Rugby & football SA dont have quota restrictions for blacks or whites like cricket. I'm 100% certain they cant try that in football - they would certainly be banned.

SACB since readmission in 1992 has just taken advantage of the fact the ICC has is not proper governing body & done that in cricket.

With regards to Pakistan, imagine the scuffle if the ICC tried to mandate how the PCB worked. Similarly, FIFA doesn't actually tell the FA or any regional football board how to work, which is where your analogy with FIFA breaks down. FIFA don't try and build more training centers in India or help our local board (I believe it is the Indian Olympic Association) out, despite us being one of the weaker football nations.

The PCB would definately budge, since the backlash they would get from their supporters if the a strong ICC was to ban them for mixing politics from sports would force them to fix their acts.

As i mentioned before i have seen a few interviews on ESPN with Imran Khan saying one of the reasons he stopped playing domestic cricket in Pakistan during the 1980s. Was because the domestic system was structured so abysmally & it stiffled talent. For example you have the Pakistan Airlines & Pak Bank being teams in their FC competition - instead of having proper state teams like Lahore, Karachi etc.



FIFA can definately make the FA do stuff via UEFA. If FIFA sets a rule everyone has to adapt it. But at the end of the day the FA or no national board would ever be structured as messed up as the PCB...since FIFA set rules of the road years ago to prevent such crap from ever happening anywhere in the world.

FIFA would never need to help INDs football team in anyway ever. India's problem with development in its football i would think its fairly obvious - its a cricket mad country. All sports will always come out far second best.

That would be like trying to promote cricket in brazil :laugh. So your comparison with India falls flat on its face.

Furthermore, you try to point out FIFA as a system that works when in reality it is structurally very similar to the ICC.

Ha this has been clearly disapproved above

Blatter's election as FIFA president is not without controversy, as I'm sure you know. The one difference between the FIFA and the ICC is that the president of FIFA appears to have unilateral power to make any decisions he wants. This works in practice with the FIFA since it is comprised of more than 200 boards. With the ICC, in comparison, decision about international cricket is going to affect only 10 boards, in which case a decision that goes against you is obviously going to get you miffed.

Yea i'm well aware of some of the controversey Blatter has encountered over the years. But otherwise FIFA is fine - the only REAL problem FIFA has is that those at the top dont want to introduce technology to FIFA. They dont have the ridiculous structural problems like the ICC.

Plus i dont see again why if the ICC president had unilateral power in the small cricket community of just 10 boards. Why you are concerned how that wouldn't be easier for him than Blatter, the IOC president or IAAF president who has to make decision that will affect over 200 booards??

Look of the IRB (the rugby board)International Rugby Board - IRB Council

They have about 8-10 strong nations like cricket & have a similar structure to FIFA & co has i showed you before. They have no controversies.

The reason the UDRS hasn't been implemented in practice is because the technology is not free and because they haven't voted to make it mandatory. The reason is because it is still being implemented on an experimental basis.

The reason they can't make it necessary, yet, is because not all boards can afford them. Especially those boards who can't even afford to pay their players. Sri Lanka, who is hosting India right now, has had a history of not being able to pay their players. How are they going to be able to implement UDRS? If the ICC was made of money it could perhaps invest in the technology for every series. Again, the money aspect is independent of the independence of a board.

Timely article on this exact topic by Ian Chappell on cricinfo recently & he seems generally to be on my side here: Ian Chappell: Use the UDRS or lose it | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

There's no better example of the dysfunctional nature of international cricket administration than the Umpire Decision Review System.

In late 2009 the ICC informed us the UDRS was a crucial component in ensuring correct decisions were reached on the field. Now here we are in mid-2010 and two Test series are going to be completed without the use of the UDRS.

There are different reasons for the absence of UDRS in the Pakistan v Australia and the Sri Lanka v India series. The Pakistan board (the "home" board, in this case) said it can't afford the system, while India doesn't want it. What are the chances of ensuring correct decisions are made on the field if there appears little likelihood of reaching consensus off it?

The problem is, the heads of the boards meet as the ICC and agree on a direction for the game, and then promptly head off and act in the best interest of the individual board they represent. It's as if they gather in the huddle as a tight-knit group before the match and then instead of dispersing to perform as a cricket team, they play a game of tug-of-war.

The outgoing president of the ICC, David Morgan, recently said: "The recruitment of additional independent directors would improve corporate governance." His assertion is correct but the comment would seem less like the log in the kids' playground - hollow - if, in addition to taking steps to achieve the aim of a more independent ICC board, it was complemented by a move to also have that body as the overall ruling authority in the game.

Whether you agree with the UDRS or not - and there are plenty of scouts in each camp - surely every Test series has to be played under the same set of laws and playing conditions. Firstly on the basis that there should be justice for all players, then for the integrity of Test cricket's statistics, and finally so the officials aren't made to look like right nongs.

There's much to be sorted out with the UDRS if it's to become widely accepted as a tool to assist umpires in reaching the correct conclusion. At the moment, despite being told by the ICC that it's there to eradicate the howlers, there's far too much emphasis on scrutinising 50-50 decisions. This will probably continue to be the case as long as the right of appeal rests with the players.

I'm not personally in favour of the UDRS, but that's immaterial; it's the players and umpires who have to decide the system's method of operation and fate. However, in conjunction with efforts to fine-tune the system, I would also like to hear some parallel discussion on ways to improve the standard of umpiring. And anything that can be done to ensure the best umpires are adjudicating, which in many cases is allowing one home umpire to stand, would be a step in the right direction.

The crucial decision is finding a way to utilise the system in all matches, and if that conclusion can't be reached, it should be shelved. That's unlikely to happen.

Expecting the television-rights holders to pay for extra technology they don't actually need for their coverage is a sure way to create argument. Equally, asking some of the cash-strapped boards to foot the bill is unreasonable. If there was one ruling body, it could fund a separate operation to cover the game from an umpire's perspective from the money received for selling the television rights. This would then be run separate from the television coverage, which is the only way to ensure the integrity of the system.

Like a lot of decisions made by cricket administrators, the umpire review system wasn't fully thought through before it was implemented. Instead, a problem with umpiring was perceived and when greater use of technology was put forward as a solution, it was pounced upon as the way to soothe player- and public unrest. So far it's caused as many arguments as it has solved disputes.

A holistic approach to improving the standard of umpiring, including use of a widely accepted UDRS could help the game progress. However, at the moment reaching the right conclusion on the field is impossible while they don't have consensus off the field.

The bolded is exactly what i was going to tell you. Cased close by I Chappell.

I don't buy the whole "test cricket is dying" argument one bit. You can read my views on that in several different threads on this forum.

Link please?

Test cricket has always been the pleasure of cricket's more passionate followers. Ever since ODI cricket was introduced, it always brought in more money and viewership than Test cricket. It's not as if T20 is stealing away massive hordes of Test cricket fans.

T20 cricket is attracting the wrong fans to the game & potentially is encouraging reknewed interest in the game for the wrong reasons

That's essentially what they did! John Howard was the candidate and the representatives of each board were the ones who decided whether or not to accept his candidature. Enough people said no, so it's now time to look for another candidate. It's pretty straightforward.


What is the purpose of a "representative" from each country, then? If you're going to completely disregard his opinion of a candidate, he might as well not exist in the process.

Not representatives. The boards themselves.


The ICC as proper independent board should decide who they want as president. The "board' of course themselves will have memembers from all the nations.

If under those circumstances Howard was still rejected, there wouldnt be a problem. But the fact that he was rejected by various boards because of bias they had towards him because various things. Made the whole process totally farcical.

Really, this is a problem of any democracy. I think what you are really looking for is the ICC to become a tyrannical organization, with the ICC president having all power. There are two issues, though. One is who chooses the ICC president. And the second is why would anyone listen to him? Power bubbles will form in any situation where there are votes to be had--it's unavoidable. To pretend that adding the word "independent" to a body will make it free from this is silly.

As soon as you have representatives from boards, there will be alliances forms. It's inevitable. So the only solution is for some autonomous leader to be chosen. Which, in my opinion, would be even worse for cricket since it would alienate portions of the already tiny member nations.

You are confused.

- All the major sporting bodies as i illustrated above is structured in the way i am & Ian Chappell suggest the ICC should become. So get off it.

- Of course alliances will be formed if a voting system is involved. I dont have a issue with that. Once at the end of the day you dont see the ridiculous problems when it comes to actually running of the football, track n field, rugby that cricket has. Thats all thats important.

- Do you see any of the "independent" presidents of any of other sporting bodies not being listened to??. Your worries in this regard is not driven by facts

- The idea of an atonomous leader is indeed ridiculous & is totally not needed. The ICC just needs to be restructed in the way that i've continously suggested.

To conclude, I think you have a far too pessimistic nature of the ICC and your dislike for the BCCI in conjunction with recent events has lit a fire under your backside.

:laugh Dont irritate me son. I have NO DISLIKE FOR THE BCCI, christ. I criticize alllllllll the cricket boards for not collectively making an effort to make the ICC a proper governing body, which has allowed the BCCI to have the power they have in the game.

If it was the ECB or ACB who was in the BCCI position, i would criticize them just as well. So dont ever go their again...

I think the motto for the ICC should be "just let them play". Honestly, no one gives a crap about any of the backroom politics that happens. I couldn't care less who has more or less power, as long as we can continue seeing the game of cricket, especially now when it is at the peak of it's competition.

This is a great time to have an opinion about cricket--unfortunately most of them are whining about the BCCI or the ICC or some other thing that is tangential to actual cricket. Let's just concentrate on the cricket and forget about all the drivel that happens in the background. It's going to settle itself out just like everything else in the world does.

Utter codswallop. Backroom politics is VERY important. That sort of dont care attitude of not caring about what happens at the top of agencies/organisations is one of the reason why the US Financial system crashed.

Cricket will always have structural problems until the ICC is revamped into proper independent governing body. Thats the hardcore fact - denying this is madness.

Plus are you in mars?? :laugh. Which cricket do you watch, cricket is by no means at the peak of its competition. SMH

 

[CG123]

Is all I can say is fearsome tweak the IPL.
There's not much more to it than that.

 

[riz7khan12]

Is all I can say is fling the IPL.
There's not much more to it than that.

this is not our discussion, its between war and sohum

 

[sohum]

I'm not sure i buy that really - although i know outside of world cups & Champions Trophy (which is the ICC main source of income) - they dont get money in much other ways. The ICC has been wasting money quite foolishly in recent years trying to develop cricket in USA & China & other associate countries.

The ICC's main source of income is sponsorship from the GCC which IIRC was a long contract that took them through their main events (World Cup, Champions Trophy, etc.). What ICC spends their money on is a matter of opinion. The ICC can't really spend their money paying salaries, either, as that would be a major conflict of interest.

You are also creating confusion here. Globalization of the game is not something that is being promoted by one or two powerful boards--it's something that is one of the main underlying goals of the ICC. In short, creating an independent board, like you suggest, wouldn't do anything to amend the problems of the weaker boards having financial problems. A re-alignment of goals would be necessary and since the power struggle doesn't have an effect on the globalization of cricket, pretending that one is being held up by another is an illogical conclusion.

If you understand how FIFA, IOC etc is structured in those links i showed you. It should be fairly easy for you to envision how the ICC would be structured once it became independent.

The links you showed me did not show any sort of radical structure, which you seem to suggest that the ICC needs to employ. The FIFA president is still chosen by a vote. It just so happens that 200+ countries are voting instead of 10. Now, you yourself have already claimed that the ICC shouldn't give a crap about associates and minnows (when you claimed that it should abandon the development of the game there and instead concentrate on the financially weaker Test nations). So the process is essentially the same. You've got the teams playing the game and you've got the President. The teams vote for the President. They voted here and decided that John Howard wasn't the correct choice. If Sepp Blatter went up for a vote and got one vote, he wouldn't be the President of the FIFA.

The stuff about each position's responsibilities just demonstrates your ignorance about how any company functions. This statement in particular: "Dont you see whats wrong with this???. How can you be mixing an executive branch with the financial, legal, communications, development??. Thats ignorance & pretty much proves my point." What are you trying to say here? You really need to elaborate on your points better. You make statements that appear to be revolutionary followed by many question marks but don't actually say anything. The general manager of any sports organization is responsible for the general functioning of the organization and is the head of all the sub-organizations. Just take a look at the NBA. The GM of an NBA franchise is responsible for everything from recruiting to roster management to salaries to contractual obligations. That doesn't mean he handles each of these himself--it's just his responsibility meaning he is reported back to at the top of the chain. Really, what are you trying to prove here? Perhaps if you are more straightforward and make actual comparisons instead of alluding to them, it would be easier to follow.

:laugh. Nah you changing your point, since your original point was thrashed. You dont need clearance from no national government to represent your country in no sport - because national boards dont have anything to do with government. Especially if sportS governing body make it clear that sports & politics cant mix. Get your facts straight yo...

You do need clearance from some boards to represent your country in a sport, "yo". What's up with your grammar, by the way? It seemed to be pretty good up until here. The Indian government had a major kerfuffle with the BCCI recently to determine whether the Indian national team represents India or it represents the BCCI. The answer was a little bit of both. While the BCCI is a somewhat independent private organization, it still operates under the jurisdiction of any private entity in that country. Meaning that it still has to follow the laws of that country. So if the ICC tomorrow decided that all its member organizations had to do something that was contrary to the laws of a member nation, this doesn't mean each member organization is free to follow through, just because it is part of the ICC. The member organizations are still under jurisdiction of the national government.

Since you will probably try to weasel your way out of this, let's use a concrete example. If the ICC decided that no member nations are allowed to use quota systems, then they would be contradicting the jurisdiction of the South African government. The only thing this would achieve is that the ICC would ban South Africa from playing in ICC sanctioned events. But the ICC can't actually go into South Africa's domestic leagues and prevent them from implementing the quota system that is part of the law.

Im not sure if the SA government actually did that. Because in Rugby & football SA dont have quota restrictions for blacks or whites like cricket. I'm 100% certain they cant try that in football - they would certainly be banned.

Just Google "rugby quota" and you will notice that the domestic rugby system in South Africa does employ a racial-based quota system. This does not apply to the national rugby team as far as I'm aware, but there's a lot of pressure internally for it to be done. With regards to football, I won't insult your intelligence as I'm sure you know that football is considered the sport of the "blacks" and rugby that of the "whites" and South Africa's travails with racial quotas in sports has largely been to mend the lack of "blacks" in teams, and not vica versa.

The bottom-line, which was my original point, is that if the Springboks decided to employ a quota system, the only thing the IRB could do is ban the South Africans from participating in IRB events. They couldn't change the law of the country and they certainly couldn't meddle in the domestic rules.

SACB since readmission in 1992 has just taken advantage of the fact the ICC has is not proper governing body & done that in cricket.

This is such a ridiculous statement that it doesn't even deserve a response.

The PCB would definately budge, since the backlash they would get from their supporters if the a strong ICC was to ban them for mixing politics from sports would force them to fix their acts.

You're kidding me, right? The issues with the PCB aren't as much their domestic system as it is the completely shambolic structure of the organization, especially from a selection point of view. The ICC cannot tell the PCB how to select their players, just like the FIFA cannot tell the Indian football federation how to select it's national team. The ICC can try to aid the PCB in developing their domestic league but they certainly can't force it with anything except sanctions against participating in ICC-sponsored events. Should they do this? My response is at the end.

FIFA can definately make the FA do stuff via UEFA. If FIFA sets a rule everyone has to adapt it. But at the end of the day the FA or no national board would ever be structured as messed up as the PCB...since FIFA set rules of the road years ago to prevent such crap from ever happening anywhere in the world.

I see, so the FIFA has decided how the FA's selection process should work or how the FA leadership should be chosen? As usual, you are saying a lot of crap without actually pointing out specifics. The problems with the PCB are a poor domestic structure and poor process of selecting national teams. These are both internal issues that the PCB has to work out by either getting rid of corruption or getting embarrassed in their internal encounters. Similarly, if the FA had a poor domestic structure or a poor process of selecting national teams, would they suddenly be eliminated from the UEFA? Are you suggesting that every football association that is part of the UEFA/FIFA is blueprinted on a singular structure and is perfectly organized?

That would be like trying to promote cricket in brazil :laugh. So your comparison with India falls flat on its face.

You obviously missed/ignored the point about India since it contradicted your statements. The Indian football federation is about as useful an organization as the PCB. There are approximately two good football teams (Mahindra United and Mohan Bagan--of course I don't follow Indian football at all so I don't really know). The former of these teams decided to shut up shop last year (as far as I remember). So football in India is definitely in an implosive state. You make a point earlier pretending that FIFA maintains totalitarian control over all its member organizations to make sure that all of them fit a standard. If such a standard exists, then it is certainly questionable that the Indian football federation can squeak through. And if it doesn't, then all your huffing and puffing is actually just smoke without fire. FIFA happens to mask its ineffectiveness in dealing with crappy member boards by having enough really well-run boards that control the majority of the power share.

Ha this has been clearly disapproved above

I think the word you were looking for is "disproved". Also, you still haven't pointed out how the organizations are any different except that FIFA is about 3.5 times as big as ICC and has about 4-5 times as many powerful members.

Why you are concerned how that wouldn't be easier for him than Blatter, the IOC president or IAAF president who has to make decision that will affect over 200 booards??

The decision is "spread" across many boards. If Blatter makes a controversial decision, it may affect 1-2 boards adversely and 10-20 boards positively. If the ICC president was to make a similar decision, the 1-2 boards he affected would actually be 20% of the playing populace.

The bolded is exactly what i was going to tell you. Cased close by I Chappell.

And yet you ignore the fact that I said essentially the same thing that he did: neither the boards nor the TV companies can pay for the UDRS because they don't have enough money and it's not in their best interests. If the ICC voted to make the UDRS mandatory, then it would be implemented in each and every match. Don't believe me? Just look at the Power Play rule. It's not as if the BCCI favored the PP rule and hence it now has a place in international cricket. The ICC technical committee made it mandatory and hence it is now legally required. Similarly, if the technical committee made UDRS mandatory, the ICC would have to foot the bill for UDRS in every international Test match. I think this has much more to do with the ICC not wanting to spend money on implementing UDRS for a Bang-Zim Test series than the BCCI not wanting to use the technology. After all, the ICC only makes money on their flagship events.

Link please?

Peruse for yourself. You can use the "find all posts" in my user profile if you are really concerned.

T20 cricket is attracting the wrong fans to the game & potentially is encouraging reknewed interest in the game for the wrong reasons

Who are you to decide what a "right" or "wrong" fan is? That just stink of elitism. You don't have any ownership over the game of cricket.

Not representatives. The boards themselves.

Moot point. They were representatives, by the way. A board isn't an actual physical entity. The BCCI can't actually walk into the ICC meeting--it isn't an actual person. The view of the board was brought forth by the representative. That's the whole point of a representative--they represent the view of the underlying body!

The ICC as proper independent board should decide who they want as president. The "board' of course themselves will have memembers from all the nations.

If under those circumstances Howard was still rejected, there wouldnt be a problem. But the fact that he was rejected by various boards because of bias they had towards him because various things. Made the whole process totally farcical.

More allusion to this whole "independent board" thing which you have still been unable to describe. :sarcasm

The ICC just needs to be restructed in the way that i've continously suggested.

The way you've suggested is no different from the way it is. The only difference you suggest is that the ICC president have unilateral power. The voting process is exactly the same--the only difference being that 10 people vote instead of 200.

:laugh Dont irritate me son.

Stop calling me son. I'm older than you are, unless you lied on your profile.

Utter codswallop. Backroom politics is VERY important. That sort of dont care attitude of not caring about what happens at the top of agencies/organisations is one of the reason why the US Financial system crashed.

Cricket >> anything the ICC is up to.

Cricket will always have structural problems until the ICC is revamped into proper independent governing body. Thats the hardcore fact - denying this is madness.

It would be a hardcore fact if you could put into words what an "independent governing body" is. Really, why don't you actually devote one whole post into explaining exactly how this would be formed, including how you would choose "representatives" for each board that acted free of bias from their national boards. Do so without abstract allusions to other sports governments and I may take you seriously. The bottom line is that you think that there's this radical change that should happen wherein the change isn't really radical at all--it's just putting more power into the hands of the President. That's all the change you're describing is.

Plus are you in mars?? :laugh. Which cricket do you watch, cricket is by no means at the peak of its competition. SMH

Oh I see. I guess Pakistan tying Australia 1-1 in a Test series outside the subcontinent is every day business...

But honestly. The last two decade of Test cricket has seen one country (Australia) be unequivocally at the top for the vast majority. It is only now that we've seen them dethroned and the top 4 teams can defeat each other consistently (England, Australia, South Africa, India). If you really can't see this, then I may be from Mars, but you are most definitely from Pluto. I guess the ex-planet-identity of your natural habitat may have clouded your vision somewhat. :sarcasm

 

[Iridium]

Holy cow! Sohum, that is the biggest post I have ever seen. Now just got to read through what you wrote.....

 

[Chewie]

You should see some of the arguments that are posted in some of these threads between War and sohum sometimes lol Imagine a whole page of that.

 

[Iridium]

You should see some of the arguments that are posted in some of these threads between War and sohum sometimes lol Imagine a whole page of that.

It's insane. I honestly tried to read all of it but I just couldn't, I just couldn't. sohum seems to have the edge over War. Mind you they're both bringing out some really good points. What most of them are, I can't remember.

 

[sohum]

:laugh

I don't even remember what my original point was...

Just re-read and the only reason I ever got drawn into this discussion is because War implied that NZ is struggling financially because the ICC is not a "proper independent governing body".

The problem is logical (-> is "implies").

War says that A -> B.
He assumes that not A -> not B, but this does not logically follow.
The only corollary you can draw from A -> B is: not B -> not A

To put it into English, it is possible for New Zealand to be financially successful without revolutionizing the structure of the ICC. In reality, it is probably easier to not do that, too.

 

[War]

The ICC's main source of income is sponsorship from the GCC which IIRC was a long contract that took them through their main events (World Cup, Champions Trophy, etc.).

Ok you just repeated what i said to you. Only thing you actually named the sponsor "GCC" that sponsored the world events that the ICC gets its income from.

The ICC can't really spend their money paying salaries, either, as that would be a major conflict of interest.

Salaries for who?

What ICC spends their money on is a matter of opinion.

You are also creating confusion here. Globalization of the game is not something that is being promoted by one or two powerful boards--it's something that is one of the main underlying goals of the ICC. In short, creating an independent board, like you suggest, wouldn't do anything to amend the problems of the weaker boards having financial problems. A re-alignment of goals would be necessary and since the power struggle doesn't have an effect on the globalization of cricket, pretending that one is being held up by another is an illogical conclusion.

Nonsense. Unless we the main 10 (8 nations if you to specific on the team strenght) are very competitive. Globalizations to the USA etc is a futile attempt, since cricket will never get popular over there even with the rise of T20 cricket.

Whatever money is being wasted in that direction of futile globalization should be used in whatever way to aid weaker boards.

The links you showed me did not show any sort of radical structure, which you seem to suggest that the ICC needs to employ. The FIFA president is still chosen by a vote. It just so happens that 200+ countries are voting instead of 10. Now, you yourself have already claimed that the ICC shouldn't give a crap about associates and minnows (when you claimed that it should abandon the development of the game there and instead concentrate on the financially weaker Test nations). So the process is essentially the same. You've got the teams playing the game and you've got the President. The teams vote for the President. They voted here and decided that John Howard wasn't the correct choice. If Sepp Blatter went up for a vote and got one vote, he wouldn't be the President of the FIFA.

- What radical structure have i EVERRRR suggested that ICC become?. If you are clear about what i showed you in those links, whats the confusion then?

- Secondly as i said above about ICC dealing with associate & minnows. I never said they shouldn't give a crap about them. I suggested that shouldn't be a big priority as it is now. Until the 10 (8) member nations are on steady playing feild.

- Thirldy :laugh. Are you crazy??. How could you say the voting process for president in ICC to other sporting bodies is similar??. To quote I Chappell:

The problem is, the heads of the boards meet as the ICC and agree on a direction for the game, and then promptly head off and act in the best interest of the individual board they represent. It's as if they gather in the huddle as a tight-knit group before the match and then instead of dispersing to perform as a cricket team, they play a game of tug-of-war.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???....They MEEEEET AS THE ICC to make all decisions. Thats is TOTALLLLLLLY DIFFERENT from other sports, where their sporting bodies are INDEPENDENT. JESUS CHRISTTT....you are like talking to bloody brick.

The stuff about each position's responsibilities just demonstrates your ignorance about how any company functions. This statement in particular: "Dont you see whats wrong with this???. How can you be mixing an executive branch with the financial, legal, communications, development??. Thats ignorance & pretty much proves my point." What are you trying to say here? You really need to elaborate on your points better. You make statements that appear to be revolutionary followed by many question marks but don't actually say anything. The general manager of any sports organization is responsible for the general functioning of the organization and is the head of all the sub-organizations. Just take a look at the NBA. The GM of an NBA franchise is responsible for everything from recruiting to roster management to salaries to contractual obligations. That doesn't mean he handles each of these himself--it's just his responsibility meaning he is reported back to at the top of the chain. Really, what are you trying to prove here? Perhaps if you are more straightforward and make actual comparisons instead of alluding to them, it would be easier to follow.

OH GODDDDDDDD:doh. I trying to make this discussion easier for both of us by given links so you can read & grasp what i'm saying quicker. Since i'm sure regardless of how much i dont mind this long discussion - the shorter it becomes the better right??. But GOD DAMNNNNNN its like you can read & interprit properly or what man???. You ARE forcing me to have to type this thing out.

Let me explain the structural difference again:

The difference between the ICC structure to that of FIFA, IOC, IRB, IAAF is. These sporting bodies have a president, couple vice-presidents & 10-15 other members which are from all over the world.. This is totally INDEPENDENT from any memeber boards. Do you understand this?

The ICC the supposed "governing body" of world cricket. Its made up of a:

President, Chief Executive Officer, General Manager - Cricket
General Manager - Commercial, Chief Financial Officer, Head of Legal, Head of Media and Communications, General Manager/Chief Investigator - ACSU, Manager - Global Development, Head of Member Services, Manager - HR & Administration

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCEEEE??

I'm hoping by the time you reach this point of this post you do. Then its is obvious why its ridiculous why in the case of the ICC the mixing of the executive branch with the financial, legal, communications, development is
classified as its structure.

Those other parts of ICC should be seperate from the executive branch. The ICC is structured that way for the ONE MILLIONTH TIME BECAUSEEEEE:

The President & CEO in the ICC are just names - they have no power. That decision making power to select presidents & any other decisions that will affect world cricket coems from the various cricket boards. In which currently the BCCI has the most power & influence.

The ICC is lame duck organisation. If Ian Chappell gets it, whats stick between you head is preventing you from grasping & accepting this simple FACTTT???. JESUSSSSS :doh


Finally i have to laugh :laugh @ you comparing the NBA (NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION) structure of a world governing sporting body. SMFH .

The FIBA is global governing body for B-BALL.

I'm am not a follower of B-BALL at alll. So i wont make an ill-educated comment about the games strucutre like i know about football, Rugby, Athletics.

But just checking the FIBA structure its very similar to that of FIFA, IOC, IAAF, IRB again. I'm not sure how major international B-BALL is anyway, as an outsider the NBA seems the main HUB of world B-BALL.

You do need clearance from some boards to represent your country in a sport, "yo". What's up with your grammar, by the way? It seemed to be pretty good up until here. The Indian government had a major kerfuffle with the BCCI recently to determine whether the Indian national team represents India or it represents the BCCI. The answer was a little bit of both. While the BCCI is a somewhat independent private organization, it still operates under the jurisdiction of any private entity in that country. Meaning that it still has to follow the laws of that country. So if the ICC tomorrow decided that all its member organizations had to do something that was contrary to the laws of a member nation, this doesn't mean each member organization is free to follow through, just because it is part of the ICC. The member organizations are still under jurisdiction of the national government.

GOOD GOD. You are definately confusing what i'm trying to say. Blabbing away a set of irrelevant crap here.

OF COURSEEEE even if a a sporting body is private its is still subjected to a governments laws with regards to certain things. YOUUUUUU where the one who ignited this ridiculous part of this debate by suggestion intially that:

Secondly, even if a hypothetical "independent" utopia existed, the ICC would have no jurisdiction whatsoever to invest in so many different countries. If you are not already aware, all cricket boards are extensions of the country's government. The ICC does not have a right to change that system since each country has a separate governing system in place. And that's not the ICC's problem either, since in every single sport (even your beloved football) the domestic governing body is an extension of the government.

Which i fundamentally rebutted. Then you started to switch your mouth by implying things that i NEVER SAID.

In every national sport all sporting bodies have a strong position that politics are sports MUST NOT MIX. This is where as i suggested in previous post the situation in FIFA recently after the world cup with the Nigerian & French governments.

The governments had to back down to FIFA because banning the national sports team would cause them more headaches from the population than any political position on the respective sports they want to influence. This is why having a strong independent governing body is important.

Look @ what happened with Zimbabwe cricket circa 2003-2006 with the increase politicization of the national team, which forced so many good players to leave & thus them forcing themselves to leave test cricket. That would have NEVER happened under FIFA or any other sporting body because the ZCB would have known from long - how far they could have projected their political influence into the sport.

But yet ZIM where never banned under FIFA during that period or to date. They still participlated in the 2006 & 2010 WC qualification & the last few African Cup of Nations. Which again proves my point.

Since you will probably try to weasel your way out of this, let's use a concrete example. If the ICC decided that no member nations are allowed to use quota systems, then they would be contradicting the jurisdiction of the South African government. The only thing this would achieve is that the ICC would ban South Africa from playing in ICC sanctioned events. But the ICC can't actually go into South Africa's domestic leagues and prevent them from implementing the quota system that is part of the law.

Again i never said the ICC could do that. This is all you putting words into my point & making this long useless post. As i said above if the ICC was always strong & independent. The SACB quota system in cricket - like rugby probably would have been limited to domestic.

Just Google "rugby quota" and you will notice that the domestic rugby system in South Africa does employ a racial-based quota system. This does not apply to the national rugby team as far as I'm aware, but there's a lot of pressure internally for it to be done. With regards to football, I won't insult your intelligence as I'm sure you know that football is considered the sport of the "blacks" and rugby that of the "whites" and South Africa's travails with racial quotas in sports has largely been to mend the lack of "blacks" in teams, and not vica versa.

- As i said above i know about the quota in rugby domestically in SA.

- With regards to football. Yes indeed it is a predominant black people sport in SA. So technically yes, the quota system isn't needed in football. But the point still stands that they couldn't employ quota system in football under any circumstances

The bottom-line, which was my original point, is that if the Springboks decided to employ a quota system, the only thing the IRB could do is ban the South Africans from participating in IRB events. They couldn't change the law of the country and they certainly couldn't meddle in the domestic rules.

Your orginal point is my point as well :doh. I never suggested ANYWHEREE the the IRB or any other sports governing body could "change the law of the country and they certainly couldn't meddle in the domestic rules"

This is such a ridiculous statement that it doesn't even deserve a response.

There is absolutely nothing ridiculous about that statement. That again based on what i've continously said above is the FUNDAMENTAL FACT why the quota system has gotten out of hand in cricket & why they have lost a few top players to England & county cricket since readmission.

You're kidding me, right? The issues with the PCB aren't as much their domestic system as it is the completely shambolic structure of the organization, especially from a selection point of view. The ICC cannot tell the PCB how to select their players, just like the FIFA cannot tell the Indian football federation how to select it's national team. The ICC can try to aid the PCB in developing their domestic league but they certainly can't force it with anything except sanctions against participating in ICC-sponsored events. Should they do this? My response is at the end.

AGAIN your point here is what i'm saying alllll alongggg. AGAIN nowhere did i say the ICC if it was truly independent would TELL the PCB how to select players. JESUS CHRIST!!!

Like above the ICC being strong & independent & have rules in place. Would in itself make the PCB reform itself, since they know imminent bans/suspensions from the ICC would be on its way. They would without a doubt face far more backlash from fans & former players for causing the national team to face such measures - than what the government bureaucrats would do them if they dont get their way fully in the selection etc of the national side.

I see, so the FIFA has decided how the FA's selection process should work or how the FA leadership should be chosen? As usual, you are saying a lot of crap without actually pointing out specifics. The problems with the PCB are a poor domestic structure and poor process of selecting national teams. These are both internal issues that the PCB has to work out by either getting rid of corruption or getting embarrassed in their internal encounters. Similarly, if the FA had a poor domestic structure or a poor process of selecting national teams, would they suddenly be eliminated from the UEFA? Are you suggesting that every football association that is part of the UEFA/FIFA is blueprinted on a singular structure and is perfectly organized?

:laugh. Im convinced now you have a serious problem with reading & comprenhending. Another longgg useless regurgitating a load of codswallop on a point i didnt say. SMFH :doh

- My point there was talking about RULESSSS the FIFA would set out the the FA would have to adapt even if they dont like it. I.e if FIFA finally decides to bring technology into football - it is a must. Unlike cricket in the situation where we have URDS being used in one series - but not the other. DO YOU GET THE SPECIFICS HERE???

- Seconly yes i know of no football association part of UEFA/FIFA or any conferderation worldwide that is structure is in the sort of shamebels like PCB in cricket - never heard of it.

Of course all countries have their power-strucuture different. I.e here in England after England's disastrous WC performance. Their is debate here that the FA should have more power in the game so as it shake things up, like how it is in France, Spain, Germany, Italy in order to help the national football team. In England power of football is divided up into the FA, the premier league, the football league.

The FA has no authoririty the tell the Premier League how to develop players, run its local academies etc. This is why their is talk for all to come together for the sake of the national team.

You obviously missed/ignored the point about India since it contradicted your statements. The Indian football federation is about as useful an organization as the PCB. There are approximately two good football teams (Mahindra United and Mohan Bagan--of course I don't follow Indian football at all so I don't really know). The former of these teams decided to shut up shop last year (as far as I remember). So football in India is definitely in an implosive state. You make a point earlier pretending that FIFA maintains totalitarian control over all its member organizations to make sure that all of them fit a standard. If such a standard exists, then it is certainly questionable that the Indian football federation can squeak through. And if it doesn't, then all your huffing and puffing is actually just smoke without fire. FIFA happens to mask its ineffectiveness in dealing with crappy member boards by having enough really well-run boards that control the majority of the power share.

I ignorned your point in the previous post then because it makes no sense.

As i said before. Their is only so much FIFA via the AFC (Asian football Federation) can do with a football in India. India obviously is a cricket mad country, if 9 out of 10 kids when they are younger prefer cricket to any other sport thats a grassroots problem. Football players will never develop thus the local Indian football (when it comes to gaining sponsors for local leagues & grassroots develeopment), FIFA, AFC can do nothing about that. Its very simple. You make it sound like if football world is missing out having India football nation. :laugh

I think the word you were looking for is "disproved". Also, you still haven't pointed out how the organizations are any different except that FIFA is about 3.5 times as big as ICC and has about 4-5 times as many powerful members.

:laugh. What happen man. I cant make a spelling mistake?? What, What??. Bloody clown...Stick to the damn cricket debate.

I painstakingly went through this above. So hopefully by the time you get this this point of this post, you would be clear. But i'm not holding my breath :laugh

The decision is "spread" across many boards. If Blatter makes a controversial decision, it may affect 1-2 boards adversely and 10-20 boards positively. If the ICC president was to make a similar decision, the 1-2 boards he affected would actually be 20% of the playing populace.

And whats the issue here. The defacto leader in the BCCI hasty decision to rush IPL into existence in 2008 costed NZ the services of Shane Bond. Pakistan Yousuf & Razzaq & key members of the BANG cricket team due to entire confusionthe IPL/ICL saga caused around 2007/08.

The lack of proper ICC is causing the confusion with the URDS. Under a proper ICC none of that would have never happened. So dont tell me crap.

What you are suggesting may happen if the ICC was truly independent & made a decision for its 10 memeber. In hypotetical theory this may be the case.

But lets deal with reality for a minute. Look at the future of international cricket & what needs to happen. Can you articulate any potential decisions that could occur would affect any member nation negatively??

Fact is in FIFA no changes to football that has been made under blatter has ever affected any part of football world negatively. Except his lack of implementation of technology to football - which even many people dont want to see in football to this day.

So again your worries about an potential independent making a decision in cricket that would negatively affect any member nation is basically just your paranoia.

And yet you ignore the fact that I said essentially the same thing that he did: neither the boards nor the TV companies can pay for the UDRS because they don't have enough money and it's not in their best interests. If the ICC voted to make the UDRS mandatory, then it would be implemented in each and every match. Don't believe me? Just look at the Power Play rule. It's not as if the BCCI favored the PP rule and hence it now has a place in international cricket. The ICC technical committee made it mandatory and hence it is now legally required. Similarly, if the technical committee made UDRS mandatory, the ICC would have to foot the bill for UDRS in every international Test match. I think this has much more to do with the ICC not wanting to spend money on implementing UDRS for a Bang-Zim Test series than the BCCI not wanting to use the technology. After all, the ICC only makes money on their flagship events.

You where the one that said:

The reason the UDRS hasn't been implemented in practice is because the technology is not free and because they haven't voted to make it mandatory. The reason is because it is still being implemented on an experimental basis.

The reason they can't make it necessary, yet, is because not all boards can afford them. Especially those boards who can't even afford to pay their players. Sri Lanka, who is hosting India right now, has had a history of not being able to pay their players. How are they going to be able to implement UDRS? If the ICC was made of money it could perhaps invest in the technology for every series. Again, the money aspect is independent of the independence of a board.

Thats why i bolded that portion from I Chappell article:

If there was one ruling body, it could fund a separate operation to cover the game from an umpire's perspective from the money received for selling the television rights. This would then be run separate from the television coverage, which is the only way to ensure the integrity of the system

Which explains what could/would have happened with the financing of the URDS under an independent ICC. Since i'm sure you will agree for the intergrity of the game ESPECIALLY TEST CRICKET. It is ludicrous to not have all test series playing under the same rules.

Peruse for yourself. You can use the "find all posts" in my user profile if you are really concerned.

:laugh. Whats up man, why you behaving so rude. Why you just can't link me with the articles/post in which you made your position on this matter?. More signs that this little cricket debate is getting you all touchy..:laugh

Who are you to decide what a "right" or "wrong" fan is? That just stink of elitism. You don't have any ownership over the game of cricket.

:laugh oh geez. Hey you are clown for real. Now i'm a elitist. haha.

Ok boss. Let me give you an example of what i mean about "wrong fans" liking cricket now because of T20 cricket. I'm a black british individiual. As you may have noticed british born black people are totally for football & have no interest in cricket. (I am sort of unique in this sense because i have a white father & i was brought up in a very strong cricket home).

Since T20 cricket has evolved black kids my age have suddenly starting showing interest in cricket again to fair degree. But they dont like test cricket - they say its boring & see it as a posch/bourgeoisie sport & even suggested ludicrously that test cricket should be scrapped & T20 remain the only form of cricket.

I have relatives in the caribbean & during the Standford T20 extravaganza their a few years ago i heard similar reports from young individuals.

These fans may be good just fulling up the grounds but they are speaking of tEST cricket like that. What use is gaining their interest in cricket???

Moot point. They were representatives, by the way. A board isn't an actual physical entity. The BCCI can't actually walk into the ICC meeting--it isn't an actual person. The view of the board was brought forth by the representative. That's the whole point of a representative--they represent the view of the underlying body!

No they dont, nor they didn't in the Howard case. As Chappell my boyyy so erudiatedly described how things occur when memember boards meet:

The problem is, the heads of the boards meet as the ICC and agree on a direction for the game, and then promptly head off and act in the best interest of the individual board they represent. It's as if they gather in the huddle as a tight-knit group before the match and then instead of dispersing to perform as a cricket team, they play a game of tug-of-war

Thats what happened with the Howard situation. He wasn't rejected on cricketening reasons, its was because of things he said as politician. As i suggested before in previous posts - im not too fond of people like Howard who never played cricket or was involved in cricket administration being ICC president.

The way you've suggested is no different from the way it is. The only difference you suggest is that the ICC president have unilateral power. The voting process is exactly the same--the only difference being that 10 people vote instead of 200.

SMFH. *SIGHS*. ALL 200 BOARD MEMBERS DONT VOTE IN FIFA. All they vote to do is elect the executive committee.

THE VOTING IN FIFA & OTHER SPORTING BODIES IS DONE BY THE MEMBERS OF ITS INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. Which is about 15 memebers, its its THISSSS "independent executive committee" which makes all the decisions in world football. Do you understand the difference????

Stop calling me son. I'm older than you are, unless you lied on your profile.

Haha. Look @ you getting worked up because i called you "son". SMH. So touchy haa, grow up & stick to the cricket debate.

Cricket >> anything the ICC is up to.

This statement is what is fundamentally wrong with your position in this entire debate & why i will soon leave it alone. If you dont see the importance of having a proper governing body in criket fine. I can assure you that you are in a minority with the position.

I got I Chappell, David Morgan & many others on my side...:laugh

The outgoing president of the ICC, David Morgan, recently said: "The recruitment of additional independent directors would improve corporate governance." His assertion is correct but the comment would seem less like the log in the kids' playground - hollow - if, in addition to taking steps to achieve the aim of a more independent ICC board, it was complemented by a move to also have that body as the overall ruling authority in the game.

It would be a hardcore fact if you could put into words what an "independent governing body" is. Really, why don't you actually devote one whole post into explaining exactly how this would be formed, including how you would choose "representatives" for each board that acted free of bias from their national boards. Do so without abstract allusions to other sports governments and I may take you seriously. The bottom line is that you think that there's this radical change that should happen wherein the change isn't really radical at all--it's just putting more power into the hands of the President. That's all the change you're describing is.

I have above. But i'm going to do this one more time:

- The representatives to be part of ICC executive committee & president would be chosen by the 10 member boards. As i mentioned above all this stupid talk about potential "bias" is just your dumb paranoia.

- This "executive committee" lead by president would then make all decision regarding the running of world cricket.

Thus the ridiculous situation that we have now where memeber board leaders have to meet as the 'ICC" (since the acutal ICC president is just as name - with no power), to make decisions will stop.

If this is not clear AGAINNNNNN. You will never understand.

Oh I see. I guess Pakistan tying Australia 1-1 in a Test series outside the subcontinent is every day business...

Oh great Pakistan wins one test in 2 test series & everything is rosy for them again.

But honestly. The last two decade of Test cricket has seen one country (Australia) be unequivocally at the top for the vast majority. It is only now that we've seen them dethroned and the top 4 teams can defeat each other consistently (England, Australia, South Africa, India). If you really can't see this, then I may be from Mars, but you are most definitely from Pluto. I guess the ex-planet-identity of your natural habitat may have clouded your vision somewhat. :sarcasm

Yes so what happen to PAK, WI, NZ,BANG then??. I thought you said its in PEAK COMPETITION. That last i checked supposedly means all 8 nations are really competitive, which is CLEARLY not the case.

 

[Iridium]

Honestly, what is the point of making such a gigantic post. I highly doubt many people are going to read it. You spend all that time bringing up some very good points, but it's lost because it's too long. Short and simple is the key. You've flooded people with too many points.

 

[-D-S-B-]

And I find it hard to write a few hundred words at school