ICC News: Restructuring the ICC, BCCI Influence & more

[PokerAce]

^ I agree. I have always said that BCCI getting a greater share of the revenue is fine. However there are other things that need improvement, and if Manohar can fix those, then great.

 

[War]

No BCCI just have to spend their resources which was already massive before Big 3 takeover, that they have better to develop whatever they want on a local level. Plus IPL is another huge side earner for them.

 

[PokerAce]

^ See the resource thing is something I cannot agree on. If you are to continually generate 70% of the revenue for ICC, then it requires substantial reinvestment of the resources, and BCCI cannot work on a generate 70% reinvest only 5% model. Its just financial suicide.

Its not even a BCCI related point, just common sense economics. No business can work if it doesnt reinvest a large chunk of the funds it generates, in itself. A business doesnt work on philanthropy. You can't give away 90% or 80% or 70% of what you generate to charity and hope to be a successful business. Its bound to go down.

In expecting BCCI to work under the communist give all the money to the other boards model, you are expecting BCCI to basically disprove economics !!

 

[War]

^ See the resource thing is something I cannot agree on. If you are to continually generate 70% of the revenue for ICC, then it requires substantial reinvestment of the resources, and BCCI cannot work on a generate 70% reinvest only 5% model. Its just financial suicide.

Its not even a BCCI related point, just common sense economics. No business can work if it doesnt reinvest a large chunk of the funds it generates, in itself. A business doesnt work on philanthropy. You can't give away 90% or 80% or 70% of what you generate to charity and hope to be a successful business. Its bound to go down.

In expecting BCCI to work under the communist give all the money to the other boards model, you are expecting BCCI to basically disprove economics !!

Its not as if the BCCI generates this 70% of ICC revenue by itself. As Narajan Shah himself stated in article, which critics have been saying all along this 70% they bring via their broadcasters is by playing quality opposition. The same way how IPL is big because of the foreigners that play in the league.

All that money disappears if India & IPL has nobody to play or foreign players in league.

I gave the football example before of how the premier league equal revenue sharing works despite big teams Man United, Chelsea etc brings in the majority sponsor money to league - so there is an obvious example in the world of sport that this works.

The fact is those in the BCCI of serious influence are publicly supporting this idea & are regurgitating everything I have said in this thread of the last 4 years, plus the many the main cricket journalist about why everything about the revenue sharing model of Big 3 takever and all things BCCI has been wrong. So my advise is jump on the train of change before it leaves you...

 

[War]

News and Analysis : Pakistan v India 2015-16 | Bazid: PCB should stand firm on MoU | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

Bazid Khan is 100% on the ball & has raised a very valid point about the validity and strength new MOU arrangements that the "Big 3" implemented to replace the ICC mandated tours in the FTP.

As most would know Pakistan was probably the biggest opponent of the Big 3 takeover right down to the end & only reason they agreed was because India promised them 6 series over the new FTP cycle.

This is looking like an obvious bluff now... @Rehan_24 @sami ullah khan @Sami Kumar @send2yaari @talahayat

 

[PokerAce]

There is nothing in the MoU to say that a series must be played in 2015. When the govt. gives its approval, the series will take place.

The decision on the series will take place way beyond BCCI's paygrade. Also don't even try and paint India - Pakistan, cricket from a purely cricketing brush. There are things involved, in the decision making that go way beyond a cricket field.

 

[PokerAce]

Its not as if the BCCI generates this 70% of ICC revenue by itself. As Narajan Shah himself stated in article, which critics have been saying all along this 70% they bring via their broadcasters is by playing quality opposition. The same way how IPL is big because of the foreigners that play in the league.

All that money disappears if India & IPL has nobody to play or foreign players in league.

I gave the football example before of how the premier league equal revenue sharing works despite big teams Man United, Chelsea etc brings in the majority sponsor money to league - so there is an obvious example in the world of sport that this works.

The fact is those in the BCCI of serious influence are publicly supporting this idea & are regurgitating everything I have said in this thread of the last 4 years, plus the many the main cricket journalist about why everything about the revenue sharing model of Big 3 takever and all things BCCI has been wrong. So my advise is jump on the train of change before it leaves you...

You make it sound like its a one way cycle.

Yes other teams come to play in India, and similarly India goes and fulfills its obligations to play in other countries and be money spinner tours for those boards. So its not like only India benefits from the visting teams, the other boards also benefit from India's visit. So the playing field in that regard is even. India generates money from visiting teams, but equally the other teams make money from India visiting them.

Far from BCCI wanting a share in what the other boards generate from BCCI's visit, BCCI merely wants a greater share in what it itself generates, and people dont even want to allow this. BCCI is not asking for all of what it generates or even 50% or even 40%. BCCI wants 17% of what it generates (22% of overall ICC funds), and people cannot stop from calling BCCI greedy ba$tards, out to end the game.

Also its just common sense economics man, No business can just ignore reinvesting in itself.

Its the same with BCCI. BCCI is saying okay fine, feed off all the revenue we are generating, no issues. However atleast give us enough to keep ourselves financially viable. Give us 18% of what we generate and the rest feel free to distribute among yourselves. Thats very reasonable according to me.

Also the Football analogy ... The football clubs don't share all their income with the other sides. Do you think Man U shares its income from Shirt Sales with West Brom, or does Arsenal gives the money from its Stadium Name Sale with Sunderland, or what % of the Gareth Bale transfer fee are you going to tell me was given to Swansea?

There is no way that in Football all the income from the 20 clubs is put in one large pile, and cut in 20 equal pieces. The Football sides have their own resources, and are free to make money off it as they want, and how much money they make is no other clubs damn business.

Financially BCCI is right to ask for a greater share as otherwise its a financially unstable model.

There are other wrongs under the big 3, that do need correcting. Like the 10 team world cup, the big three hogging all the big events, if there is a Veto that needs to go. The ICC, regardless of revenue sharing, must have all members equal when it comes to administration, etc.

However BCCI must get more funds to be financially stable. Asking BCCI to work off peanuts and continue to generate the money that the other boards can feed off, is asking BCCI to disprove economics.

 

[CerealKiller]

News and Analysis : Pakistan v India 2015-16 | Bazid: PCB should stand firm on MoU | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

Bazid Khan is 100% on the ball & has raised a very valid point about the validity and strength new MOU arrangements that the "Big 3" implemented to replace the ICC mandated tours in the FTP.

As most would know Pakistan was probably the biggest opponent of the Big 3 takeover right down to the end & only reason they agreed was because India promised them 6 series over the new FTP cycle.

This is looking like an obvious bluff now... @Rehan_24 @sami ullah khan @Sami Kumar @send2yaari @talahayat

I personally won't start crying if the series with India doesn't go ahead, and lot of Pakistanis won't neither. In fact, some of them will be happy about it. It's not just Indians who have a problem with playing Pakistan. Some Pakistanis also don't want to play against India, for well-known reasons. Shahryar Khan was criticised a lot by our media for running after India for a series. Rather than giving a new deadline to the BCCI every day, the PCB should rather focus on improving our limited-overs performance and making sure the PSL runs without any problems. If the India wanted to play a series, they would've already agreed to.

Also the Football analogy ... what? Okay fine so some TV revenue is shared. So? Does BCCI's 70% comprise purely of TV money? The football clubs don't share all their income with the other sides. Do you think Man U shares its income from Shirt Sales with West Brom, or does Arsenal gives the money from its Stadium Name Sale with Sunderland? Don't even try and tell me that in Football all the income from the 20 clubs is put in one large pile, and cut in 20 equal pieces. The difference between the 20 teams financially is large, very large. So dont tell me that they all get the same income.

I think there's a difference between leading football clubs like Man Utd and the BCCI. Those clubs became financial powerhouses following years of great performances on the football pitch (exceptions are Man City and PSG). I don't think Man Utd would be what they are today if it wasn't for all the trophies they won under Ferguson. The BCCI didn't become what they are today just because they earned all their money by India winning trophies and dominating other teams. That's a factor too, but i think there are others who were more influential in India becoming a financial powerhouse, like cricket becoming widely popular in the subcontinent during the British occupation, the little need of infrastructure for the fans to play the game and India being not as good in other sports as they are in cricket and therefore having hundreds of millions of people who are fanatics about cricket. Of course, India produced some of the greatest players ever and lately the BCCI discovered how to make even more money from T20 cricket,sponsorships and ads, so credit must go to them as well. But not all of it.

 

[PokerAce]

I think there's a difference between leading football clubs like Man Utd and the BCCI. Those clubs became financial powerhouses following years of great performances on the football pitch (exceptions are Man City and PSG). I don't think Man Utd would be what they are today if it wasn't for all the trophies they won under Ferguson. The BCCI didn't become what they are today just because they earned all their money by India winning trophies and dominating other teams. That's a factor too, but i think there are others who were more influential in India becoming a financial powerhouse, like cricket becoming widely popular in the subcontinent during the British occupation, the little need of infrastructure for the fans to play the game and India being not as good in other sports as they are in cricket and therefore having hundreds of millions of people who are fanatics about cricket. Of course, India produced some of the greatest players ever and lately the BCCI discovered how to make even more money from T20 cricket,sponsorships and ads, so credit must go to them as well. But not all of it.

I could say for instance that in the past 8 years India has won the World T20, The World Cup, The ICC Champions Trophy, and been the No. 1 test side. Its a run I don't think any side comes close to equalling. So there is no shortage of India doing well on the field. However in doing so I would deviate from the main issue. You are missing the point, its not about winning or losing.

The point is purely economics.

BCCI does generate 70% of the ICC revenue. Now any business to continue to do well and earn profits, its must be able to reinvest, what it generates in its growth. If BCCI generates 70% and in turn gets 4-5% to reinvest, in itself, then purely form an economics point of view it is a model that is going to fail. Sooner rather than later BCCI will be unable to take the 4-5% peanuts it gets from ICC and turn into a 70% contribution to ICC revenue.

Its just common sense economics.

If BCCI doesn't bring in the money, then who will? BCCI going bankrupt like it or not will be the financial end of cricket.

I am not saying give BCCI billions of dollars. Just give BCCI enough to be a sustainable business model. Let it have atleast 25% of what it generates to be able to reinvest in itself. I don't see the point in denying the one real source of money ICC has, a chance to invest in its own growth.

As BCCI produces more, the share for everyone also will be larger. So let BCCI have a sustainable economic model, and then feel free to take larger chunks from what BCCI is generating.

 

[War]

There is nothing in the MoU to say that a series must be played in 2015. When the govt. gives its approval, the series will take place.

The decision on the series will take place way beyond BCCI's paygrade. Also don't even try and paint India - Pakistan, cricket from a purely cricketing brush. There are things involved, in the decision making that go way beyond a cricket field.

My friend on the current new FTP that was created during the Big 3 takeover, the first of 6 series India promised to PAK is set in calendar: play 2 tests, 5 ODIs, 2 T20s they should be preparing for now - http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/DOWNLOAD/0000/0045/ftp_2015_2019.pdf

We all are well aware of IND/PAK cricket is always heavily influenced by government drama's due to political tension over Kashmir etc, to the latest drama when them right-wing people storming the BCCI office etc.

Behind people knowing that PAK can't host international cricket, India/PAK not being able to play a bilateral series is well known throughout the cricket world since 2007/08.

Not much had changed in 2014, so the question must be asked (you could criticize PAK for being slightly gullible here too) that if India basically bluffed or at worst lied to PCB about guaranteeing them these 6 series just to get their support in implementing Big 3 - when they knew they had obvious no control over that assurance.

This would obvious affect PCB projected earning as board if any one of these 6 series is not full-filled because as it is for any nation outside of ENG/AUS - a series vs IND is the biggest earner @talahayat

 

[CerealKiller]

My friend on the current new FTP that was created during the Big 3 takeover, the first of 6 series India promised to PAK is set in calendar: play 2 tests, 5 ODIs, 2 T20s they should be preparing for now - http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/DOWNLOAD/0000/0045/ftp_2015_2019.pdf

We all are well aware of IND/PAK cricket is always heavily influenced by government drama's due to political tension over Kashmir etc, to the latest drama when them right-wing people storming the BCCI office etc.

Behind people knowing that PAK can't host international cricket, India/PAK not being able to play a bilateral series is well known throughout the cricket world since 2007/08.

Not much had changed in 2014, so the question must be asked (you could criticize PAK for being slightly gullible here too) that if India basically bluffed or at worst lied to PCB about guaranteeing them these 6 series just to get their support in implementing Big 3 - when they knew they had obvious no control over that assurance.

This would obvious affect PCB projected earning as board if any one of these 6 series is not full-filled because as it is for any nation outside of ENG/AUS - a series vs IND is the biggest earner @talahayat

I think the most ironic thing is that if Srinivasan was still BCCI president, this series would've probably already gone ahead in the UAE. Shashank Manohar (is that how you spell it?) has got many things right, but his we-won't-play-in-UAE-because-of-some-shenanigans-that-took-place-15-years-ago-despite-the-fact-6-teams-played-Pakistan-there-without-any-signs-of-match-fixing-reported policy is really ridiculous. And the funny thing is, he keeps saying that India have no official reason not to play in the UAE, but they still don't want to.

 

[War]

You make it sound like its a one way cycle.

Yes other teams come to play in India, and similarly India goes and fulfills its obligations to play in other countries and be money spinner tours for those boards. So its not like only India benefits from the visting teams, the other boards also benefit from India's visit. So the playing field in that regard is even. India generates money from visiting teams, but equally the other teams make money from India visiting them.

Far from BCCI wanting a share in what the other boards generate from BCCI's visit, BCCI merely wants a greater share in what it itself generates, and people dont even want to allow this. BCCI is not asking for all of what it generates or even 50% or even 40%. BCCI wants 17% of what it generates (22% of overall ICC funds), and people cannot stop from calling BCCI greedy ba$tards, out to end the game.

Also its just common sense economics man, No business can just ignore reinvesting in itself.

Its the same with BCCI. BCCI is saying okay fine, feed off all the revenue we are generating, no issues. However atleast give us enough to keep ourselves financially viable. Give us 18% of what we generate and the rest feel free to distribute among yourselves. Thats very reasonable according to me.

Also the Football analogy ... The football clubs don't share all their income with the other sides. Do you think Man U shares its income from Shirt Sales with West Brom, or does Arsenal gives the money from its Stadium Name Sale with Sunderland, or what % of the Gareth Bale transfer fee are you going to tell me was given to Swansea?

There is no way that in Football all the income from the 20 clubs is put in one large pile, and cut in 20 equal pieces. The Football sides have their own resources, and are free to make money off it as they want, and how much money they make is no other clubs damn business.

Financially BCCI is right to ask for a greater share as otherwise its a financially unstable model.

There are other wrongs under the big 3, that do need correcting. Like the 10 team world cup, the big three hogging all the big events, if there is a Veto that needs to go. The ICC, regardless of revenue sharing, must have all members equal when it comes to administration, etc.

However BCCI must get more funds to be financially stable. Asking BCCI to work off peanuts and continue to generate the money that the other boards can feed off, is asking BCCI to disprove economics.

BCCI makes money from hosting/touring all teams from its broadcasters. Its your cricket crazy India here, its not like sport broadcasters in IND have any alternative big sport to throw money at. Modern BCCI since the Jagmohan Dalmiya days (since 2000 especially) has been the richest cricket board in the sports history.

However even they (broadcasters & BCCI) pick and choose who they play. Take for example them 9 years between 2002-2011 to host Windies or 7 years between 2003/04 to 2010/11 before hosting NZ.

They wouldn't have got similar broadcast money from hosting those teams much (on field form a factor also obviously) as vs big teams. But WI & NZ would inversely gain big money from touring India & if cricket had a balanced home/away scheduled, that would have occurred.

This broadcast money (70%) disappears or is heavily jeopardized - if IND have no opposition (especially the big teams) to play this is why many have stated before - the other boards should have called BCCI's bluff last year and let them walk away and try to former a rebel cricket league in world cricket - if they didn't get the extra revenue's

Regarding football of course we are speaking just about "general broadcast" revenues that the ICC makes outside of world cups & the premier leagues brings in thanks mainly to the fans of United, City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Totteham. Was never speaking about side revenues these clubs earns from their individual broadcast rights, sponsorship deals, player transfer money, star player shirt sales haha come on now

For BCCI this is would be the enormous side capital IPL and the now defunct dumb cricket champions league generated for them. They make enough money as it to find ways help develop their domestic game, pitches, improvement of fast-bowlers/spinners, batsmen techniques for overseas battles as it is.

The ongoing premier league season is a timely example of how the broadcast shares revenue after years of implementation works perfectly.

Look at the current BPL table, who is on top? Leicester City - BBC Sport - Football - Premier League Table

This is so because that equal share revenue policy has enabled them and clubs also like Crystal Palace, Stoke City, West Ham to attract top players from around Europe mainly because the revenue funds allows them to pay players well. Stoke City have have bought Xhendan Shaquiri from Bayern Munich and Bojan Kric from Barcelona. Crystal Palace took Yohan Cabaye from PSG/France that is owned by them rich arab oil men & the examples are endless with other mid level BPL clubs.

You look at spain who have adopted the opposite model of Barcelona/Madrid taking majority of La Liga broadcast money for reasons BCCI were talking about & including the odd years when Valencia & Athletico Madrid (club that Sourav Ganguly has investment in) won title - La Liga has always been a two horse race and La Liga has not grown in competitiveness one bit.

 

[Rehan_24]

@War Trust me, Many people in Pakistan knew that this so-called MOU is more a bluff than any concrete thing. Even if It would be a legal contract, Many of us would have that perception that India won't play the series because the golden history says that Pakistan never really had any problem playing cricket with India, this thing has always come from their side reasons of political tensions/whatever.

Personally,Its more of a fault by Pakistani Government and Najam Sethi other than Indian Govt. and cricket board. Zaka Ashraf had given tough time to Big 3 Agenda, that man looked a professional till the time a politically influenced Najam Sethi arrived on the scene and gave some innocent Pakistani people and foolish paid media "A FALSE DREAM" that OHH we have earned six bilateral series. lol....

Many Cricketing experts here and general public laughed on it that this won't happen and India got what they wanted which is Big 3

On one hand, You don't play Cricket with us even on a Neutral way... On the other hand, If we boycott World T20 2016, You are still not happy.... If problems are this far... Why not change the matches schedule so that Pak won't face India in Dharamshala and also pray that India Pak doesn't get a encounter in the Semi's or Final. What would you do then? Playing cricket with the same Nation whom you are avoiding? No sense at all

 

[PokerAce]

My friend on the current new FTP that was created during the Big 3 takeover, the first of 6 series India promised to PAK is set in calendar: play 2 tests, 5 ODIs, 2 T20s they should be preparing for now - http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/DOWNLOAD/0000/0045/ftp_2015_2019.pdf

Oh please as if FTPs are not changed all the time, new tours put in, old tours postponed modified, hell WI even took it to a new level when they left one midway, without so much as a slap on the wrist ! But it was BCCI that suffered so its all alright, isn't it?

The key element in all of this is MoU, and depending on that some tentative schedule may have been drawn up, those are always subject to change, for various issues including security. Take the recently postponed Aus tour to Bangladesh for instance.

BCCI signed an MoU to play Pakistan, but in the MoU, didn't commit to playing one in 2015 and no dates are laid down in the MoU itself. So you can hold up the FTP all you want, but those are always subject to change for all kinds of issues, including security. If either side PCB or BCCI feel the security measures are not in place where ever the matches are to be held, then the Tour will not take place, and it will not contradict the MoU in anyway.

So frankly this is a non issue right now.

Also the fact that you dismiss govt. intervention on both sides as 'drama' shows just how completely clueless you are about the dynamics in the region, so the less you involve yourself with this the better. Honestly.

 

[grkrama]

We all are well aware of IND/PAK cricket is always heavily influenced by government drama's due to political tension over Kashmir etc, to the latest drama when them right-wing people storming the BCCI office etc.

WTF?

DO you know how many lives are lost in the border, how many villages affected, how much of a disservice it would be to those souls!

The only thing that influences Indo-pak relations is Terrorists

Not much had changed in 2014,

Wow people loosing life at the border should be accepted as normal and some fuking cricket match should be played for the gallery!