ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[grkrama]

Wealth redistribution is a bad idea in all quarters. What i would rather encourage is an equal opportunities model.

First of the test playing nations other than B3 and SA,NZ dont govern their funds properly which is their prob.


The only guys who aren't looked well in the current model is associates which is certainly not how it should be, but at the same time it shouldn't be free lunch for them to develop, cause in these associates without proper structures mismanagement of these limited funds is again a plenty.

So what ICC should do is develop a Program for them upon entering which Associates get a hefty amount to develop their game over 5 years repayable later without interest/minimal one either in the form of money or games, with a contractual obligation to ICC, along with an ICC appointed executive to oversee the things with control over them.

Over these 5 years the associates should also get a lot of games with full members. Even if its warmup like the one with ENG in dubai let it be recognized as INTL matches. Make those useless Bilateral t20s include associate nations.

Now the problem here would be the quality of cricket played by these associates at the start, there are two solutions for these to get them to scratch both should be done simultaneously

1. Long-term solution: ICC appointed coach, let ICC get those willing coaches on their payroll and send them out for these teams. Im sure there are lots of intl players and quality coaches out there that dont get an intl gig in their life and would be willing to take up an offer.

2.Short term one for the boost to iNTL level: This is from IPL policy, Allow upto 4 Foreign players for these associate teams for the 5 years till they get upto scratch. There are lots of FC guys who remain second string for their life in the test playing nations let the willing ones take it as an opportunity.Again them being on ICC payroll would motivate as well as give them financial security like the coaches.

This gives the Associates a much needed experience of taking their cricket to next level as well as make the games they are in more competitive. Which in turn would be the biggest draw as well as advertisement for the game in their respective countries.


Something like this i can see as a proper way to get associates into the game. Instead of just giving them a share of money an hoping they would grow!

 

[Satan666]

There is no ifs and buts. If India gets largest share of revenue then India deserve it i think. I don't think Aussies and English board are that sweet that they will let India have the largest share without any reason and they will just watch it silently.



I am against it as much as others are. Game shouldn't limited to some top class teams. It should expand further and further.

Btw, I like the way you refrain from including the other guys of BIG 3 . They are as much part of this management thing as india is. They are called Big 3 for a reason.



WI Board ,their team ,their internal co-ordination and their performance is the reason for decline and their current situation. I don't any reason why would anyone attack WI and make sure they go out of the cricket. They aren't world beaters anymore. Only WI board and their players can revive it.

And Yes, India doesn't seem to have any reason to attack WI. If you are stuck on that series thing, Get over it quickly.

Well basically England an Australia along with the other full member nations supported the new governing/financial structure of ICC in order to survive. You're right India are the ;largest contributor in terms of revenue. India have consistently wielded their advantage since early 2000 and now they basically run things they are misusing their power and running the sport into the ground.

The ICC gets no revenue from bilateral tours, so why are India so greedy and insistent on reaping every penny they think they deserve? The world cup is the largest source of revenue to the ICC, these people are so greedy that they decided to cut it down to ten teams to make more money for themselves! Call it Big 3 call it whatever but we all know India are the supreme masters of world cricket.

Let me remind you of the ICC mission statement, ''to help in promoting the global game". They certainly have done the reverse to this in recent times!

Many Indian supporters post that its correct that India are just taking their rightful share of the revenue because they contribute the most to the coffers I cant condone this because what are the Indian administrators doing with this money? They're not assisting the in the rural villages of India who support them, instead they fatten their pockets, not giving much back to cricket neither, they help some associate teams someone posted, why not equal across the board for all associates and affiliates? At present ICC has basically are caste system similar to that of the Indian culture of ancient times, where basically the rich boards get richer and the poor boards get poorer! Remember my fellow members the more you give the more you receive, without WI/NZ/SL or the Associates/Affiliates cricket will not be a financial cash cow as it is today.

Say what you want but cricket as a sport has deteriorated considerably over the last decade. Case in point AB Devilliers of SA has had a stellar record thus far but we haven't seen the pundits of the game give him any recognition as the Vivs or Laras or Sachins, and its simply because AB hasnt been really tested since the best bowlers today play with him not against him. Australia have had Ryno a top bowler but hardly played due to injury, at present there arent really any bowler of the likes of McGrath/Warne/Wasim playing today. Dale Steyn is probably the only bowler of that class while Johnson is to in and out and Starc is now coming in to prominence.

 

[themusketeer]

^My question is why so strong English and Aussies board not doing anything about it. Why they are sitting like puppet ? Who knows what's going inside ?

 

[PokerAce]

I think as that article that I earlier posted shows BCCI cannot keep generating 70% of the revenue and take 4% in return. Its a rubbish business model. No business can work that way. For any business to grow a substantial portion of what was generated must be reinvested. BCCI has been unable to do that in the previous years as what it generates is basically given to the other boards, and BCCI gets mere a fraction of what it generates to reinvest in its own growth.

Such a business model with almost no reinvestment is bound to fail. If BCCI keeps giving money away to the other boards how is it going to reinvest any money to build on what it has achieved.

Its not like the rest of the boards are generating a ton of money so cricket will be fine with BCCI taking a hit. Cricket, whether people like it or not, financially means BCCI. If BCCI goes down, there will be no money in the game left, and we can say goodbye to the game. No business can take a hit of 70% of its revenue suddenly disappearing and Cricket is no different.

For BCCI to continue to be the Golden Goose, or the Financial donkey whose coattails everyone wants to ride on to their own financial opulence, BCCI must be able to reinvenst a substantial portion of what it generates, in its own development. The earlier model was clearly not giving BCCI an opportunity to do so. Hence the sensible heads prevailed, and BCCI now gets a larger share of the revenue and thus BCCI can develop faster, and the ICC and the rest of the boards can feed off that development and extra revenue, like they have been doing for so long.

The attitude from those who oppose the new model is ludicrous to say the least, and borders on robbery. BCCI generates the money but its MUST give it all away to the other boards who generate almost not even a fraction of what it does. Oh and the best bit is they are all hiding behind the "its for the good of the game excuse". BCCI must give away all its money to WICB, and NZC, and SLC and what not, because its for the good of the game.

No thats not why the other boards want money, its nothing to do with the good of the game. I say its not. Its not about BCCI being greedy, its actually the other boards being greedy and getting their hands on easy extra money they cannot generate themselves. Why stop there? Tomorrow is it okay if we start a movement that the ten richest people of the world and I pool in all our wealth together and it be redistributed among us in 11 equal shares, because its for the good of humanity

 

[War]

I think as that article that I earlier posted shows BCCI cannot keep generating 70% of the revenue and take 4% in return. Its a rubbish business model. No business can work that way. For any business to grow a substantial portion of what was generated must be reinvested. BCCI has been unable to do that in the previous years as what it generates is basically given to the other boards, and BCCI gets mere a fraction of what it generates to reinvest in its own growth.

Such a business model with almost no reinvestment is bound to fail. If BCCI keeps giving money away to the other boards how is it going to reinvest any money to build on what it has achieved.

Its not like the rest of the boards are generating a ton of money so cricket will be fine with BCCI taking a hit. Cricket, whether people like it or not, financially means BCCI. If BCCI goes down, there will be no money in the game left, and we can say goodbye to the game. No business can take a hit of 70% of its revenue suddenly disappearing and Cricket is no different.

For BCCI to continue to be the Golden Goose, or the Financial donkey whose coattails everyone wants to ride on to their own financial opulence, BCCI must be able to reinvenst a substantial portion of what it generates, in its own development. The earlier model was clearly not giving BCCI an opportunity to do so. Hence the sensible heads prevailed, and BCCI now gets a larger share of the revenue and thus BCCI can develop faster, and the ICC and the rest of the boards can feed off that development and extra revenue, like they have been doing for so long.

The attitude from those who oppose the new model is ludicrous to say the least, and borders on robbery. BCCI generates the money but its MUST give it all away to the other boards who generate almost not even a fraction of what it does. Oh and the best bit is they are all hiding behind the "its for the good of the game excuse". BCCI must give away all its money to WICB, and NZC, and SLC and what not, because its for the good of the game.

No thats not why the other boards want money, its nothing to do with the good of the game. I say its not. Its not about BCCI being greedy, its actually the other boards being greedy and getting their hands on easy extra money they cannot generate themselves. Why stop there? Tomorrow is it okay if we start a movement that the ten richest people of the world and I pool in all our wealth together and it be redistributed among us in 11 equal shares, because its for the good of humanity

You have a point regarding BCCI, but totally off in suggesting other boards are greedy. This is old point that was debated before in this thread when BIG three started so lets recap.

ICC was never a financially viable institution before Jagmohan Dalmiya became president in the mid 90s (when ENG/AUS veto power was eased), Dalmiya idea of the champions trophy was formed in 1998 to save the ICC from being bankrupt. So India has played a MASSIVE role in helping the ICC have money.

If ICC would have been a proper independent body all these years with sound finances since the Kerry Packer saga - India's rise as financial power would be as irrelevant as England financial might in world football to FIFA, despite the influence of the premier league.

Cricket major broadcasters also realize that the ICC is dysfunctional governing body & they simply gravitate to IND market because its a quicker easier financial deal. This is arguably the main reason why they forced the ICC to give up the test championship idea & bring back the champions trophy.

AUS & ENG has have strong commercial partners for cricket in their countries as we all know

The economies of certain cricket nation aren't financial strong enough to grow the game in their territories without ICC funding. Realistically cricket should have a similar broadcast sharing deal to the English premier league.

Most fans want to see the United, Chelsea, Arsenals of the league - but not because their viewing fans contribute to the Premier League getting all this money more than a Stoke City/West Brom/Southampton - doesn't mean they should get more funds. That deal has helped the premiership be competitive & all clubs become financially strong - even the big 6 clubs still have individual financial deals.

This is why India/ENG/AUS getting more money is atrocious. Cricket won't grow now.

One or two countries dominating the broadcast money as we see in La Liga with Real/Barca, has led to La Liga being a boring two horse reals for almost two decades now - except the odd year as this article from one year ago eruditely describes - Barca, Real Madrid and cricket's 'Big Three' - Sport - DAWN.COM

 

[PokerAce]

@War I agree about what you are saying to some extent, however I think that beyond a point the parallels with football cannot be applied to cricket. Unlike Cricket, Football is a truly global sport.

People watch the Man Us and Chelseas of the world because the best in the world play there, and don't watch the West Broms etc so much because the best don't play there. Take Chelsea and Man City for example or even PSG, who not long ago were among also rans, but today their games have viewership among the very highest.

The point I am making is the wherever the best football players play, the people will turn up in numbers to watch, and are willing to change their viewing prefernces for that. Like earlier (before the got rich and bought players) Chelsea and Man City would not have drawn such large viewership as they do now. I West Brom or Stoke suddenly got the power to bring in the best in the world and then people will watch them.

In other words, wherever the best players go people will watch them. So England or Spain don't really have any 'real' influence over FIFA. If the players move from England and go somewhere else, the people will watch that. I am not suggesting everyone will stop watching but a substantial viewership apart from perhaps the hardcore supporter will move, and more importantly so will the TV money. Not all of it, but the large point is that there is bound to be a rise in wherever the football firepower shifts, and a dip in where it used to be. Yes there are loyalties but loyalties shift, and shift soon. Think of how many millions of new fans and viewers Chelsea and Man City acquired globally once they attracted the best players. Look at PSG, and see the hike in their fans and viewers, and they aren't even in a top league, atleast not at par with EPL or La Liga.

Wherever on the globe the best footballers go to play, be it Europe, South America, Asia, Africa, the people will flock in numbers. The same is not true with Cricket. The viewership including TV viewership exists in a very limited pocket, and most of that pocket is under the control of BCCI. Take Eng-Pak, some of the best in the world are playing there, yet how many are watching? Yesterday SL-WI ODI was played out in SL with the stadium not even half full, and this is Limited Overs we are talking here. Ram Slam yesterday barely had 100 people in attendance and this was T20 said to have magical abilities to draw in crowds.

Cricket doesn't have the luxury that Football does. EPL and La Liga enjoy a top position, but FIFA doesn't need EPL and La Liga. FIFA can have the players move to any other point in the world, and as along as its the best, people will tune in. So if EPL or La Liga want too much, FIFA can just take their circus elsewhere. ICC needs BCCI because ICC can't take Cricket anywhere else. India is the market. You take BCCI away and that is the end of cricket financially. So BCCI can demand whatever it wants, and get away with it.

However to be honest, as I said if Cricket has to grow then BCCI has to grow financially, and to do that BCCI must be allowed to reinvest in itself, and cannot just keep giving away or keep having taken away whatever it is generating

 

[PokerAce]

Also I read the article and its mostly about La Liga TV money and how Barca wanted more. It over-reaches far too much. Its too much to say that Sevilla would be competing for the title, and would not have to sell its players to Man City if it the same TV money as Barca and Madrid. Frankly TV Money share, whatever it would have been, would have been no match for Man City's lures for their players.

Think of Football in a way ... Man City are a rich club and they win/won the league. They have bucket loads of money to spend. Now take a Stoke City, what if they ran to the FA and said hey hold on what nonsense is this, we play in the same league, we are responsible for the Money Man City generate, and hence Man City and Chelsea and Co. MUST distribute all their money in 20 equal chunks, and only then can we have a fair league !! While I understand that the position in cricket is not exactly like that, but it is similar to some extent.

Also tow things are completely being ignored -

1) After the modifications every board IS getting more than what they did in the previous cycle. For example, I have posted links by WICB that says that under the Big 3 their finances will double. So its not just a case of BCCI getting more, like it or not, every test playing nations' board is going to get atleast 18% more that what they got in the previous cycle. So its not a case of BCCI getting more and everyone else having their pay docked. There is an increase for everyone from the previous cycle.

2) BCCI is money. Cricket cannot grow if BCCI goes down. It will end. So if ICC has to invest in its financial development, it must invest in BCCI. So if ICC is now doing that, its not such a mad step.

 

[Satan666]

Also tow things are completely being ignored -

1) After the modifications every board IS getting more than what they did in the previous cycle. For example, I have posted links by WICB that says that under the Big 3 their finances will double. So its not just a case of BCCI getting more, like it or not, every test playing nations' board is going to get atleast 18% more that what they got in the previous cycle. So its not a case of BCCI getting more and everyone else having their pay docked. There is an increase for everyone from the previous cycle.

2) BCCI is money. Cricket cannot grow if BCCI goes down. It will end. So if ICC has to invest in its financial development, it must invest in BCCI. So if ICC is now doing that, its not such a mad step.

1) Dont believe anything the WICB says without showing proof, theyre a bunch of liars! Even if the other full members are reaping greater revenues what of the Associates/Affiliates? As we all know theyre being kicked out of the WC, no revenue for them! Shouldnt ICC be concerned of the Assoc/Afil nations' development also?

2) BCCI make far more than they need from Bilateral Tours why the greed for more money from the ICC? As is known ICC generates money from international tournaments with the world cup being the single largest source of income! Exactly how is this money from ICC being used to develop the BCCI other than fattening their pockets further?

You have posted and opened threads for the inclusion of USA into cricket. Let me share some history with you. In 1920's when NZ/WI/IND were given full membership status the USA was maligned because they werent part of the British Empire, similarly today the Associates/Affiliates are being alienated from cricket by India!

 

[IceAgeComing]

I don't think people quite understand just how little most of the associates and affiliates get. A single set of those flashy bails that they use for the IPL and World T20 cost more than most ICC members annual grants. That isn't enough to hire a single full time staff person in much of the world, never mind pay for the equipment required for proper grassroots development of a sport. I don't care what you think: it is impossible to make a profit with a minority sport only reliant on the service of volunteers and part time workers. You have to follow a bottom-up approach and that requires a significant initial outlay before you see any return through either a domestic system or international success.

Under the big ten deal, the amount of money given to associate teams has halved: that's where the "increased revenues" that you keep talking about has come from. There is the "ODI fund" that was promised to counteract some of this but that has a few issues: firstly it only benefits teams with ODI statuses and they often are the ones that get more support anyway, and secondly they announced that the best part of 18 months ago and no one has heard anything about it since. That is often what happens with Associate Cricket: changes are made with things promised to mitigate those, and then the latter promises never happen or happen in a heavily watered down form. Look at the sixteen-team World T20: lots of people were excited when they first announced it since it would give more Associate teams games against Full Members, but when the format revealed that it was a ten team tournament with a qualifier beforehand, that enthusiasm faded.

 

[PokerAce]

Under the big ten deal, the amount of money given to associate teams has halved: that's where the "increased revenues" that you keep talking about has come from. There is the "ODI fund" that was promised to counteract some of this but that has a few issues: firstly it only benefits teams with ODI statuses and they often are the ones that get more support anyway, and secondly they announced that the best part of 18 months ago and no one has heard anything about it since. That is often what happens with Associate Cricket: changes are made with things promised to mitigate those, and then the latter promises never happen or happen in a heavily watered down form. Look at the sixteen-team World T20: lots of people were excited when they first announced it since it would give more Associate teams games against Full Members, but when the format revealed that it was a ten team tournament with a qualifier beforehand, that enthusiasm faded.

At the risk of this post being completely ignored, and people continuing to ignore facts, and just making up numbers I will still post this anyway.

ICC increases funding for Associates and Affiliates | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

The ICC board has approved an increase in funding available to its Associate and Affiliate Members from $125mn in the previous cycle to $208mn for the period 2016-2023.

Does this sound like the Associate funding being halved? The Fund available for the Associate and Affiliate Pool of $208 mil, has never been larger, than it is now under the big three. I mean seriously where do you get all the negative figures from?

To go on -

The increased funding was in line with the ICC's new strategy, which aims to assist the development of more competitive teams in international cricket, an ICC release stated. The annual funding pool for the Associates and Affiliates will go up from $20mn in 2015 to $26mn in 2016.

In addition to this, the award money for Women's cricket world cup has been increased 5 fold, according to the article.

Look if you say Associates need even more money, then I would say yes. I am all for that. Accommodate even more funds if you can.

I am all for criticising the ICC on things it gets wrong, like the 10 team WC. I dont support that decision in anyway. However to just make up figures, like Associate funds being halved, simply to bash the big three is something that baffles me.

 

[IceAgeComing]

Does this sound like the Associate funding being halved?

it was $280 million a year prior to the icc reforms: so yes, it does. thanks for backing up my points for me!

You're also ignoring some other things: for example despite the fact that the icc have had their television rights money from the world T20 increase from $1.1 billion to $2.5 billion; only $55 million of that is going to Associate members which is a lot less than they would have got under the old funding model - and isn't really an increase in real terms. There are other elements to consider other than ICC support funds.

 

[War]

ICC faces open rebellion - Telegraph

Potential signs of tension

 

[PokerAce]

it was $280 million a year prior to the icc reforms: so yes, it does. thanks for backing up my points for me!

You're also ignoring some other things: for example despite the fact that the icc have had their television rights money from the world T20 increase from $1.1 billion to $2.5 billion; only $55 million of that is going to Associate members which is a lot less than they would have got under the old funding model - and isn't really an increase in real terms. There are other elements to consider other than ICC support funds.

That article I posted clearly shows that the previous cycle associate pool was $$125mn in the previous cycle which has risen to $208mn in the cycle.

You want to ignore that, and rely and on some $280 mil figure, without so much so as giving a source for where you get that info. All the figures I prove had links attached to them, so people can look them up. Do provide a credible link like cricinfo.

Also first you say associate pool has been halved (i.e. reduced), then you say its increased by (only) $55million. So first make up your own mind about whether its halved or increased by $55 million!! It can't have been both reduced by half and increased by $55 mil. If this doesn't tell you how irrational your rant is then nothing will. So thank you for proving my point about you being irrational and desperate to ignore facts just to bash up the ICC about nothing.

Lastly the Cricinfo source, source clearly states that the increase has been from 125 mil to 208 mil, which means an increase of $83 mil.

If you think that increase is not enough and the Associates should be given even more, I don't have a problem. Give them even more funds, if it can be accommodated.

 

[War]

1) Dont believe anything the WICB says without showing proof, theyre a bunch of liars!

Yep the same WICB that their CARICOM governments because of terrible track record of lying and being horrific administrators, is now calling to be disbanded and a interim body similar to what runs Sri Lanka cricket take over

CARICOM panel suggests 'immediate dissolution' of WICB | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Satan666]

At the risk of this post being completely ignored, and people continuing to ignore facts, and just making up numbers I will still post this anyway.

ICC increases funding for Associates and Affiliates | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo



Does this sound like the Associate funding being halved? The Fund available for the Associate and Affiliate Pool of $208 mil, has never been larger, than it is now under the big three. I mean seriously where do you get all the negative figures from?

To go on -



In addition to this, the award money for Women's cricket world cup has been increased 5 fold, according to the article.

Look if you say Associates need even more money, then I would say yes. I am all for that. Accommodate even more funds if you can.

I am all for criticising the ICC on things it gets wrong, like the 10 team WC. I dont support that decision in anyway. However to just make up figures, like Associate funds being halved, simply to bash the big three is something that baffles me.

Step in the right direction of increasing funding to the Associates/Affiliates, far from enough though:

Simple maths puts the 95 members each receiving just over 2.1 mil over a 7 year period; 2016 to 2023 that means a mammoth 0.3 mil ($300,000) per year of funding for each member. Not quite sure what this means in terms of funding for the next 7 years, not much can be done so the Associates/Affiliates are pretty damned for the next 7 years inclusive of being cut from the World Cup!