ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

 
So South Africa choked in all important last over/meeting. RIP Cricket.
 
ICC MEDIA RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Singapore, 8 February 2014

QUOTE said:
ICC Board approves changes to governance, competition and financial models of ICC


The ICC Board today approved a comprehensive resolution relating to the governance, competition and financial models of the ICC at a meeting in Singapore.


The key elements of the resolution are as follows:


Protecting Test cricket​


A Test Cricket Fund will be introduced to help ensure all of the Test playing teams will be able to sustain a home programme of Test cricket through to 2023. The fund will be available to all of the Test playing Members except the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Cricket Australia (CA) and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).

There was also confirmation that all Full Members will enter into a series of contractually binding bi-lateral agreements as a matter of urgency so that they can confirm a comprehensive schedule of matches in a Future Tours Programme that will now be extended to 2023.



Breaking the glass ceiling​

Associate Members now have a clear pathway to playing Test cricket. The winner of the next ICC Intercontinental Cup will be entitled to take part in a play-off against the bottom-ranked Full Member and, if successful, obtain Test status. This complements the pathways that are already in place for any Member to be able to qualify for the major events in ODI and T20I cricket.



A certain and attractive package of ICC major events​

The World Test Championship will be replaced with an ICC Champions Trophy in 2017 and 2021.

It proved impossible to come up with a format for a four-team finals event in Test cricket that fits the culture of Test cricket and preserves the integrity of the format.

The most recent ICC Champions Trophy event proved to be very popular with supporters around the world and the future events will build on this success. Its also an event that any ICC Member (including the top Associate Members) can aspire to qualifying for by improving their performances in ODI cricket.


With the ICC Champions Trophy alongside the ICC Cricket World Cup and ICC World Twenty20 and the formats and venues already confirmed for all of these events the ICC has a really attractive package for 2015-23 to take to the market.



A new financial model for Full Members​

Full Members will gain greater financial recognition based on the contribution they have made to the game, particularly in terms of finance, their ICC history and their on-field performances in the three formats.


This decision is the outcome of a negotiation between Members that has been required to provide long-term certainty of participation of all Members in both ICC events and bilateral series against other Members. Without that certainty, the rights for ICC events, which are to be taken to market this year, would have been significantly impacted and, by extension, so would the financial support that has driven the growth of cricket around the world.


The structure of the model will ensure that none of the Full Members will be worse off than they are at present and - if forecasts of revenue generation prove to be correct all will be significantly better off. The agreement of the model has been an important part of a wider negotiation that will now provide long-term certainty of participation in ICC events by all of the Full Member teams.



Enhanced support for the leading Associate Members​


Funds that will be directly distributed to Associate and Affiliate Members (AMs) will continue to grow, building on a dramatic increase in the previous cycle (2007-15) if revenue targets are achieved. There is also a commitment to continue to support tournaments for all of the AMs and a range of centralised services.


The planning process for the next cycle can now begin in earnest and, as part of this, there will be a review in partnership with the AMs and their representatives of the appropriate scope of services and tournaments and the suitability of the current scorecard distribution model of the funds.



N.Srinivasan from BCCI to Chair the ICC Board from mid 2014​


The ICC Board will continue to be the primary decision-making body. From the start of July this year, the ICC Chairman will be N.Srinivasan from the BCCI.


A new Executive Committee will be formed to report into the Board. The initial Chair of this Executive Committee (ExCo) will be Wally Edwards from Cricket Australia while the Chair of the Finance and Commercial Affairs Committee (F&CA) will continue to be Giles Clarke from the ECB. These roles will be for an initial two year transitional period to 2016 only.


Once this transitional period is completed, the Chair of the ICC Board will be elected from within the ICC Board with all Full Member Directors entitled to stand for election.

BCCI, CA and ECB - will be represented on both sub-committees, along with two representatives of the other Full Members (who will be elected by the Board).

Several of these decisions still now need to be considered and adopted by the ICCs Full Council. The relevant resolutions will now be drafted through the appropriate committees, including the Governance Committee and the Board before being submitted for approval to Full Council.


A set of proposals was initially developed by the respective Chairs of BCCI, CA and ECB N.Srinivasan, Wally Edwards and Giles Clarke before being presented to a meeting of the Full Members on 9 January.


These proposals were then discussed, negotiated and modified at two subsequent ICC Board meetings. A resolution was put to a vote today and supported by the required majority of the ICC Board, including eight Full Members. Two of the Full Members Pakistan Cricket Board and Sri Lanka Cricket - abstained in the vote as they felt they needed more time to discuss the amended resolution with their respective Boards.


ICC President Alan Isaac said: The Board has made some significant decisions today which provide us with long-term certainty in relation to the future governance, competition and financial models of the ICC.


This decision comes after extensive discussions between Members that I helped initiate and were given impetus through a position paper presented by the BCCI, Cricket Australia and ECB in early January.


Since this time a set of resolutions have been drafted, negotiated and modified based on a set of principles agreed by the ICC Board on 28 January and finalized at the meeting today. There were eight Full Members who were in a position to support the resolution today and the two who abstained have pledged to further discuss the issues with an aim to reaching unanimous approval over the coming weeks.

ICC Chief Executive David Richardson said: We now have clear direction from the Board and it is our job to implement the approved resolution.


The ICC Board consists of the chairman or president from each of the 10 Full Members plus three elected Associate Member representatives. Also present at ICC Board meetings is the ICC President, who chairs proceedings, the ICC Chief Executive and the ICC Vice-President.


Alan Isaac ICC President

Mustafa Kamal ICC Vice-President

David Richardson ICC Chief Executive



Zaka Ashraf Pakistan

Peter Chingoka Zimbabwe

Giles Clarke England and Wales

Wally Edwards Australia

Nazmul Hassan Bangladesh

Imran Khwaja Associate Member Representative

Emmanuel Nanthan * West Indies

Chris Nenzani South Africa

Keith Oliver Associate Member Representative

Nishantha Ranatunga * Sri Lanka

Martin Snedden New Zealand

Neil Speight Associate Member Representative

Narayanaswami Srinivasan India

* as alternate
Click to expand...
 
War said:
Let me state up front to the PC Indians, i don't agree with this photo. But its a funny photo that is gaining traction online, that was poster by an apparent famous indian by the name of of SIJO K JOSE.
Click to expand...

Its totally irrelevant to the topic at hand War , and i dont understand what you are trying to imply here.
No most Indians do not think like that .
If you are really interested conduct a survey.

As you have seen from the limited sample in the forum that most indians are against the 'Big 3' proposal.

I wish we could carry forward discussions on these forums as Cricket lovers instead of differentiating based on nationality,you do know its just an accident of birth as said by a well known chemist.

Its fun to make comments of it during you know matches and stuff but dont over discriminate like this.

'Acceptance' and a big heart is required for the world to shrink .
 
sifter132 said:
Apologies :p I'm just a little confused as to how we change that process. I think good discussions and informative arguments have happened throughout history, before and after the rankings. The rankings are just another point of view to reference. The fact the ICC and a portion of fans take them as gospel is a bit unfortunate I guess, but if anything that makes those people EASIER to avoid :D
Click to expand...

You could avoid the fans, but you can't avoid the ICC which is obviously pushing the system as gospel.



sifter132 said:
Well because we couldn't know that anyone was better than Australia yet, even if they were weaker. I see your general point about the #1 tag, but I'd be interested to know where you think Australia should have been ranked from 2007 onwards (assuming you HAD to keep the rankings going :yes). Should SA have overtaken Aus as soon as Warne/McGrath retired? (And how to explain this to fans? ie. your team has just won 5-0, but we think your dynasty has ended - you are now #2 , congrats.) Was it the next year when Hayden and Gilchrist retired? Did SA take over #1 when they won in Aus in 2008/09? And did Aus then automatically take back that #1 2 months later when they won in SA?

You're almost talking about 'power rankings' which you see a lot in American journalism for their sports. They are supposed to reflect who is the best team going forward, not who has been the best team over the season or the past X years.
Click to expand...

Majority of times teams are ranked in retrospect.

Even when AUS beat windies famously in that famous 1995 series, AUS wasn't totally viewed as the best in the world until they defeated windies again in 96/97.

Similarly with the end of windies era after 1991. Those 4 years until AUS beat them, they obviously lost some aura and were now part of the pack of world teams, as close tussle developed between the new WI, Border's AUS, Pakistan and the readmitted S Africa.

But people/historians/erudite cricket pundits didn't began saying clearly the end of their era was the 1991 series in England, until a few years after.

So with the AUS team post 2006/07 Ashes, no they didn't become # 2. They had a similar "moving back into the pack" scenario to windies post 1991, until SA beat them in 2008/09.

Of course though, there is no ranking system that can adequate tabulate for these key intricate details.

But everyone with a brain new that Windies post 91 without Viv, Greenidge, Dujon, Marshall (Lloyd, Garner, Gomes, Holding before) or AUS post Ashes 2006 without McGrath, Warne, Langer, Martyn (Waugh bro's b4) was no longer the kind of # 1, that made them the best during the aforementioned peak years.

SA losing the return series to AUS 2008/09 was basically just one of those unique series when a individual player stuns a opposition. Johnson did that in 2009 & has we both know until the recent Ashes did not bowl so well, in a career which he was generally disappointing.

Plus of course i don't need to tell you what AUS performances have been like since 2009.

That 2009 series also is the only series S Africa have lost since their 2006 tour to Sri Lanka.
 
This whole debacle has left me completely disillusioned with the game. If I were an England player I'd be retiring in disgust.
 
Re: South Africa's balls

Given that only Pakistan and Sri Lanka abstained from voting, it seems obvious to me that South Africa's balls are firmly in BCCI pockets.

Re: What Indians think of other places map

This thing's been around a while. I don't really find it particularly offensive. I'm pretty sure an Indian came up with it. It's pretty funny.
 
used2bcool said:
Re: What Indians think of other places map

This thing's been around a while. I don't really find it particularly offensive. I'm pretty sure an Indian came up with it. It's pretty funny.
Click to expand...

It is funny in a satirical way ,but he was certainly posting it in a serious way as in generalizing,(example of joke that was made for a lighthearted laugh or two passed around as info), hence why i had to question what was his intention as its totally irrelevant to the topic at hand .:cheers
------
moving on:cheers
 
A new deal for cricket: Playing for themselves | The Economist


quote said:
BACK in 2011, Game Theory proposed cricket as the world?s second most-popular sport. But, unlike the global behemoth that is football, which is played and watched across the globe, the majority of cricket players and fans live in a single country: India. In the past fortnight, this concentration of power has begun to loom as an increasing threat to the future of the sport.

In the mid-1990s the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) rightly broke England and Australia?s stranglehold on the running of the game. It used its clout to remove the traditional powers? right to veto decisions made by the International Cricket Council (ICC), cricket?s global body. Since then the ICC has symbolically shifted its headquarters eastwards from London to Dubai, and its meetings have been intensely political affairs, defined by Anglo-Australian and South Asian rivalry, and punctuated by frequent and occasionally ugly spats.

Yet a fortnight ago, a draft document was leaked, which showed the relationship between the so-called Big Three nations is shifting. Representatives from the BCCI, the England and Wales Cricket Board and Cricket Australia had met and thrashed out a deal that would see almost all executive power in the game shared out amongst themselves. New funding arrangements would enrich these countries at the expense of the smaller ICC members, such as New Zealand and the West Indies. Associate members?the up-and-coming minnows, such as Ireland and Afghanistan?would be worse off still. Furthermore, the ICC?s ten member nations would no longer be compelled to play each other home and away at least once in every four-year cycle, as they currently are under an agreement called the Future Tours Programme. This meant the Big Three could avoid playing ?uneconomic tours? to countries such as Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. Most brazenly, Test cricket would be shuffled into a two-league format, with Australia, England and India immune from relegation from the top division.

Ahead of an ICC meeting in late January, at which the national boards were due to vote on the plan, India announced that it would withdraw from the ICC?s showcase events?the 50-over World Cup and the World Twenty20?unless the new structure was approved. Despite protests from South Africa, Bangladesh and Pakistan, after the first day of the meeting, Alan Isaac, the ICC?s president, announced ?unanimous support? for a range of principles. In the council?s world of Orwellian Newspeak, this meant that there had been no vote and a range of concessions had been granted, to ensure a smooth passing of the plan at its next meeting on February 8th.

As a result of the negotiations, the idea of two-tier Test cricket has been abandoned. So has the possibility, which so worried Bangladesh, that one of the full members could be relegated and replaced by an associate. A Test cricket fund, which will disburse financial support to smaller members, will now also support South Africa, currently the top-ranked Test team in the world. Finally, a proposed executive committee to decide ICC policy will include five members, not just the three from India, England and Australia.

In exchange for these concessions, which were little more than marginal quibbles, the Big Three have gained hugely. Based on the reasonable assumption that total ICC revenue in the next eight years will be around $2.5 billion, Wisden India has calculated that the boards of England, Australia and India will collectively be around $520m better off than they would have been had the existing distribution of revenue been maintained. The vast majority of this sum, around $450m, will go to India. Other full members and the associates will be $585m worse off.

The Big Three maintained their insistence that the Future Tours Programme be abandoned. Instead, fixtures will be negotiated bilaterally. India, especially, has become increasingly negligent in fulfilling the commitments that it does not fancy. Most recently, it cancelled an away series in South Africa in order to host Sachin Tendulkar?s final Tests at home. This is hugely important because, outside of money received from the ICC, the biggest source of income for most teams is selling television coverage of a visit from India back to Indian broadcasters. With a smaller proportion of total revenue and no guaranteed income from foreign-rights sales, the prospects of these teams improving, or even maintaining, a competitive edge are diminishing fast.

Further carrots may yet be dangled in front of smaller nations. England will talk up the prospect of Tests with Ireland; India with Pakistan. But such matters are inconsequential when compared with the long-term harm should the deal be approved, as seems inevitable. Instead of spreading enthusiasm for the sport around the world, it will concentrate interest in a small group of nations, a process that seems unsustainable. The game may eat itself. For now, cricket?s claim to be the world?s second favourite sport is just about arguable. It is unlikely to be for much longer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The article from the Economist does like to cherry-pick some of its claims. While it's true that the BCCI would benefit the most from the new revenue-sharing agreement, the article doesn't mention that a majority of cricket's revenue is also generated by India. I'm sure the 80% that's been floating around is exaggerated, but I'd bet a house on that number being in the 60% range. For generating about 60% of the revenue in this venture, the BCCI is asking for a return of about 22.68% , which isn't particularly unfair.

Also, the claims that India "cancelled" a series in South Africa are a blatant lie that hurts the credibility of the article.

EDIT: Since the whole idea of the 2-tier structure in Tests idea is scrapped, I don't think the future of the game is in as much doubt as the article would like to think.

Certainly, the people running the boards in South Africa/New Zealand/Bangladesh/West Indies aren't out to achieve the greater good of the game, but they also aren't financial idiots. They must see some sort of benefit in agreeing to this arrangement, even though they get less money upfront. Remember, the WI board did say that it would almost double its revenue through careful management of tours and the ability to play more cricket at home venues.

The other aspect is this question: why are these boards so dependent on Indian/Australian/English money? Can they not generate their own revenue? If sponsors in New Zealand/South Africa find rugby/soccer/[insert sport here] a more worthwhile investment than cricket, how is that the fault of the BCCI? Isn't that failure to grow the game in your base country squarely on the plate of the local boards? Those boards agreeing to this proposal after negotiations are essentially admitting that they do not have the ability to grow the game domestically in order for it to be viable financially without the crutch provided by the Big Three.

Just playing the devil's advocate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Slowcoach
Why the IPL is costing the ICC money
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
icyman
icyman
icyman
  • Poll
Bangladesh as a Test Playing Nation ?
2
Replies
15
Views
3K
icyman
icyman
Bevab
Draft: The One Team Draft - Round Seven Starts!
12 13 14
Replies
205
Views
13K
CerealKiller
CerealKiller
CBriddo
  • Poll
England as a test playing nation ?
Replies
13
Views
2K
NILAYSHAH60
N
Satan666
  • Locked
The Future of Test Cricket
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Ed Smith
Ed Smith

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top