ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[SaiSrini]

I have to say I'm not particularly surprised by this latest threat, and there is nothing in the history of the BCCI that doesn't suggest that they wouldn't go through with it.

If they do, though, then there will be a huge public backlash when the next India-less ICC event rolls around. The IPL can work but I'm not sure it is sustainable without international cricket. Also if other boards hit back and stop sending players to the IPL, its star value will be seriously diminished.

Another facet is that if any one of the recently retired stars takes a stand against this, it will greatly hurt the BCCI's case. If Tendulkar/Dravid/Laxman/Kumble/Srinath/Ganguly come out of the woodworks and deride this proposal as rubbish (especially Tendulkar), then the public will automatically side with them.

Nope. Sachin won't do it. He is a very diplomatic guy who doesn't like to talk unnecessarily and get into issues. And no one can fault him for it. That's how he has always been

 

[used2bcool]

maybe india have had their eye on the idea of loads of franchises playing in tournaments like the MLB or NFL, but it would be impossible to implement in a breakaway. there is no way in hell the ECB and CA were worried about this in the immediate future.

Spot on. The Indian cricketing public is all about star value (otherwise more than seven people would attend Ranji games), and there aren't enough stars in India to sustain a 15-team league once the other boards ban their players from playing in the IPL. There aren't enough markets, either.

 

[SaiSrini]

BCCI says they will not participate in any ICC events if this new proposal is not approved
India Cricket News: BCCI puts ICC events on the line | ESPN Cricinfo

This is sheer blackmail!!! What a crap load of rubbish from the BCCI!! I wish the rest of the boards and the ICC do not take this lying down. If they do (which I am fearing will happen), cricket will be dead and it would be tough to resurrect it. If BCCI think they can get away with such bullying, people need to show them that this is just not on. The public should get against the BCCI. Does BCCI think that they generate the revenue? Its the public that watches the games and thereby help generate revenue.

 

[War]

have to say that I still don't buy it. you're talking about such a huge deviation from the establishment that it's impossible to imagine.

a breakaway would have reulted in a unilateral ban on players joining the IPL from all other boards, it would essentially be trying to pedal the ranji and a domestic twenty20 league with only indian players.

maybe india have had their eye on the idea of loads of franchises playing in tournaments like the MLB or NFL, but it would be impossible to implement in a breakaway. there is no way in hell the ECB and CA were worried about this in the immediate future.

Ha you trying to make sense out of the BCCI's threat/idea for yourself, or trying to deduce the logic behind this, on behalf of the BCCI?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

no, I'm trying to say the suggestion seems so ludicrous that for the ECB/CA to claim they were worried about it as why they agreed to join with the BCCI seems to be more like face saving than reality.

this is a political statement to make them look better.

 

[War]

no, I'm trying to say the suggestion seems so ludicrous that for the ECB/CA to claim they were worried about it as why they agreed to join with the BCCI seems to be more like face saving than reality.

this is a political statement to make them look better.

I'm not totally sure about AUS motives - but based on recent history between the ECB/MCC/BCCI i would not doubt, that the ECB did this.

David Hopps described it best here: Giles Clarke on verge of diplomatic triumph | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

England as inventors of the sport, started out trying to protect cricket from the BCCI rise. But the ECB also realized that if they stood up to India on this logical & moral standpoint (see its player contract position that prevents players for going to the IPL) - other boards did not side with them - but back stabbed them. The spineless asian boards would always vote for India - Bangladesh being the biggest joke , given they have not yet played a test in India. While countries like Windies & Zimbawe would side with them too. Sometimes also S Africa would side with India before the Loorgat saga. Essentially they could only reliably depend on AUS & NZ - because countries brought politics in the sport & voted on racial/vindictive lines.

Then it tried to challenge India to form its own T20. We all remember the cringe worthy scene of Allen Standford flying into Lord's etc.

So now after all these years of frustration, ENG have taken a biased position to take what they can from the BCCI because of those years of frustration of non support from the other weak financial boards.

As Hoops said, although i obviously don't support it - its a win-win position for England. They get on BCCI/Srinivasam side, organize for the IPL to finish before the English home season, so that ENG players can play in the crossing IPL easier. Less home test versus nations such as WI/SRI/NZ/PAK/BANG. More time in the English summer to promote domestic T20 league & that will help certain English counties that are struggling financially to stay alive.

 

[cricket_icon]

I'm not totally sure about AUS motives - but based on recent history between the ECB/MCC/BCCI i would not doubt, that the ECB did this.

David Hopps described it best here: Giles Clarke on verge of diplomatic triumph | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

England as inventors of the sport, started out trying to protect cricket from the BCCI rise. But the ECB also realized that if they stood up to India on this logical & moral standpoint (see its player contract position that prevents players for going to the IPL) - other boards did not side with them - but back stabbed them. The spineless asian boards would always vote for India - Bangladesh being the biggest joke , given they have not yet played a test in India. While countries like Windies & Zimbawe would side with them too. Sometimes also S Africa would side with India before the Loorgat saga. Essentially they could only reliably depend on AUS & NZ - because countries brought politics in the sport & voted on racial/vindictive lines.

Then it tried to challenge India to form its own T20. We all remember the cringe worthy scene of Allen Standford flying into Lord's etc.

So now after all these years of frustration, ENG have taken a biased position to take what they can from the BCCI because of those years of frustration of non support from the other weak financial boards.

As Hoops said, although i obviously don't support it - its a win-win position for England. They get on BCCI/Srinivasam side, organize for the IPL to finish before the English home season, so that ENG players can play in the crossing IPL easier. Less home test versus nations such as WI/SRI/NZ/PAK/BANG. More time in the English summer to promote domestic T20 league & that will help certain English counties that are struggling financially to stay alive.

You make great points war (I know we don't always agree lol).

What's sad is how far Pakistan and the PCB have fallen since the heydays of the 80s and 90s, there was a time when they were THE board in Asia but they spent too much of that time cosying up with India and Bangladesh (latter half of the 90s and early 00s). I can understand why they did it, as there was an obvious....let's call it white bias from boards like the ECB and CA, so there was a natural alliance in the asian bloc but over the last 6-7 years, where the BCCI has really taken over and the PCB has become the whipping boys international cricket, they just haven't been willing to make a statement, to hold on to what is right.

A few years ago, the PCB would have had the perfect opportunity to make alliances with the ECB and CA, which they did but mismanagement led to a lot of burned bridges and the English, who most definitely did not want Indian domination of the game had nowhere else to go. They had to make a deal with the devil. And this is what we end up with. The BCCI,ECB and CA grouping together and the popular kids and the rest (WICB/PCB/NZ/BANG/ZIM) now nothing more than spectators, bullied into voting for what the more powerful boards want.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I'm not totally sure about AUS motives - but based on recent history between the ECB/MCC/BCCI i would not doubt, that the ECB did this.

David Hopps described it best here: Giles Clarke on verge of diplomatic triumph | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

England as inventors of the sport, started out trying to protect cricket from the BCCI rise. But the ECB also realized that if they stood up to India on this logical & moral standpoint (see its player contract position that prevents players for going to the IPL) - other boards did not side with them - but back stabbed them. The spineless asian boards would always vote for India - Bangladesh being the biggest joke , given they have not yet played a test in India. While countries like Windies & Zimbawe would side with them too. Sometimes also S Africa would side with India before the Loorgat saga. Essentially they could only reliably depend on AUS & NZ - because countries brought politics in the sport & voted on racial/vindictive lines.

Then it tried to challenge India to form its own T20. We all remember the cringe worthy scene of Allen Standford flying into Lord's etc.

So now after all these years of frustration, ENG have taken a biased position to take what they can from the BCCI because of those years of frustration of non support from the other weak financial boards.

As Hoops said, although i obviously don't support it - its a win-win position for England. They get on BCCI/Srinivasam side, organize for the IPL to finish before the English home season, so that ENG players can play in the crossing IPL easier. Less home test versus nations such as WI/SRI/NZ/PAK/BANG. More time in the English summer to promote domestic T20 league & that will help certain English counties that are struggling financially to stay alive.

yeah, I would go along with that. actually, I too have been surprised with CA's participation in this but the ashes are more important to australia then england from a comercial stand point (see them floating the suggestion of 6 tests recently and it was at their behest an extra series was played rather than a longer lay off when england requested to change the scheduling I think) so I guess they went along with it to safeguard their control in that.

actually, earlier I made a jokey remark about channel 9 as there have been suspicions that the CA is perhaps a little too much in cahoots with them so I also suspect CA's interest in this was perhaps more in channel 9's interest or, even worse, channel 9 encouraged them to be involved for the above reasons.

 

[ferg512]

Jarrod Kimber has done a lot of writing on this BCCI issue & he said sources close to the negotiation told him that, which i don't doubt.

It was only a couple months ago famous cricket historian Gideon Haigh mentioned that people in the upper echelon's of the BCCI have been insinuating talk of a breakaway quite openly:

I remember reading this a while ago, would anyone really be that surprised that they would threaten to breakaway? These guys are completely and utterly drunk on power, why wouldn't they just make the IPL 6 months long (like the NBA/MLB seasons). I know there is a lot of Indian fans that wouldn't support this but trust me they would still flock to the grounds and watch. I just remember the weird feeling I had seeing the IPL after the match fixing fiasco and the majority of the fans carried on as though nothing happened.

 

[isrararrafi]

In the end, there needs to be some change regarding how ICC will function in the future (or whether it should exist or not). Although the proposed idea will stop cricket from gaining any more popularity worldwide, the current ICC structure is not helping the game either. It is simply too weak to do anything to help the game. Asking for a fifa type strong governing body will not help either as that is simply impossible at current stage. No way would BCCI go with that. Neither will Australia or England. Handing in that much power to a relatively unbiased governing body would be a bad "business decision" for them.

 

[blockerdave]

The city/state franchise systems of the US sports work because this is how they developed, and how their history specifically developed. It means something to be a Hall of Famer, have a .400 batting average, have rushed x yards in a season etc. In cricket, youre judged on your international record.

Cricket already has a rich history of international competition. I understand the Indian love for cricket and their population plus improving economy makes them a huge market and with that should come an element of power, but their breakaway is meaningless.

The stars that created the market, Ranjihtsinjhi, Gavaskar, Azzahruddin, Tendulkar, Dravid etc. made their names in International competition. Further, the non-Indian "stars" that the Indian public want to see also made their name in International competition. There's a reason Packer kept international competition as a focus of WSC

Cutting themselves off from International competition would be ridiculous. As you say, other boards wouldn't sanction their players to go. Now some nearing the end of their careers will follow the money. But what about a few years down the line? The non-Indian "stars" who made their name in the international cricket in the meantime to get an offer for BCCI franchises will not be as popular with or valuable to the Indian public since they will never have seen them up against "their boys" in competition that matters to them. Plus in the meantime the Indian public and cricketers will grow frustrated that they dont get tested in international competition.

Call their bluff - they got nothing.

 

[used2bcool]

The IPL will lose its luster if international stars pull out. Indian sporting culture is entirely star-driven. Take the stars away and you have a glorified Ranji T20 that no one is interested in.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

I've read the article but I don't quite understand why the BCCI wants to breakaway from the ICC. What are the benefits from them doing so?

 

[asprin]

The IPL will lose its luster if international stars pull out. Indian sporting culture is entirely star-driven. Take the stars away and you have a glorified Ranji T20 that no one is interested in.

Bang on target. IPL is nothing without the international players. People love to see a star play for their city. Take that out and we all know how popular the Ranji games are.

What are the benefits from them doing so?

None whatsoever. I feel it's a fake threat. They would very well know that they could be in great trouble if the other boards do not succumb to that threat.

 

[SaiSrini]

I don't support the actions of the BCCI, but its foolish to say that the BCCI cant stand their ground in the event they breakaway from the ICC. BCCI think that they are the ones responsible for all the money that flows into the game whenever India is playing or whenever tournaments happen in India.

If the BCCI breakaway and form their own ICC, they have the power to attract other boards who would not want to stay with an organization minus India (the cash cow). Other boards will toe the line and will side with the BCCI, thereby leading to the collapse of the current ICC. The very fact that this stupid proposal has been drafted and put forward for approval, shows how much power the BCCI wield. For example, NZC have already shown that they care about their financial status by supporting this draft proposal. And there are other boards who are either afraid of voicing out their opinion, or voice their opinion in private/anonymous channels.

Also don't rule out cricketers becoming freelancers by turning down their contracts with their respective boards to play in the IPL. I mean, the money you earn in the IPL is huge and you don't care if your country's cricket board bans you from international cricket. They cant ban you from playing the IPL because if the BCCI breaks out from the ICC, no cricket board will have control over the BCCI to not pick a certain player.