Should BCCI send the Indian team to CT or No?

[Ultimate_Game]

4 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

I lived and grew up in a country where I don't have this thinking like you do right now "goras will stick together". We clearly have culture difference and hence you think different and I do different.

 

I am not judging you and saying that you are wrong and I am right, just that I do not agree with that sentiments  "goras sticking togethe" thing.

 

 

I've seen enough of the world and I know how it works. Yes, goras will stick together. No matter what happens, at the end of the day you will see Eng, Aus and mostly NZ in one corner with India on its own. That's how it works whether you like it or not and that's what we all saw happened when "Big 3" got converted to "Big 2" with India getting shafted.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Ultimate_Game

[Cricketics]

23 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

Why is it ego and arrogonace? Isn't it common sense that India gets profit based on the revenue it generates. Let's say A contributes $75, B contributes $15 and C contribues $10 for a venture or an investment worth $100. Now after a year the return is $1000 and A gets $400, B gets $310 and C gets $290. If A asks for more money in line with his investment, is A being "arrogant" or "egotist"? After all A still made money but not what he deserved. That's the issue in nutshell.

 

If India generates 75-80% of the revenue, I expect profit on similar lines. I can understand a few million dollars here and there but to cut India's revenue by 50% is robbery and India should stand its ground and put up a fight. No arrogance or ego here based on my understanding of these two terms. I call it fighting for what's fair and right.

I only called the ego on the part where we say "game can't continue without India" which many seem to say.

 

 

That is not true and it is arrogance if it is not, then i don't know what it is.

 

 

 

[Ultimate_Game]

13 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

I only called the ego on the part where we say "game can't continue without India" which many seem to say.

 

 

That is not true and it is arrogance if it is not, then i don't know what it is.

 

 

 

Game cannot continue in the sense it can't generate the sort of revenue it's generating without India. Of course you can continue playing the sport but take India out and you are back in time where cricketers are paid a pittance. I don't think this fact can be disputed and that's the reason why a tour by India is so much in demand and literally every country would do anything to host India.

[maniac]

3 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Stop thinking like a fan. You have never seen the lower levels of cricket in India.How cricketers used to survive and how BCCI has used the money to uplift them.The BCCI worked years to work to a position where the White boards couldnot treat them with disdain.Think what would have happened to Bhajji in 2008 or Sachin in 2001 if BCCI didnt have its power.The ICC wants to take away that power so that ECB and CA can rule again.

 

Read some cricketing history TICS.Its not possible for me to educate you on this.Just for starters, ICC was a very poor board before Dalmiya took over.Since 2002 India is contributing atleast 50% of ICC revenues.Before that Cricket was very poor sport.The rise of India as a economic power and the cricket market in it has caused the ICC to earn this much revenue.

 

The vote is what it is because ICC has been cutting BCCI's share and giving it to the other boards to buy the votes. Today only Zimbabwe was promised a extra 19mn USD.Where will this 19mn come from?whose share?

 

Once BCCI doesnt participate,the revenues will fall by atleast 50% if not more.Will see then how ICC buys these votes.

 

 

The money demanded by BCCI is rightfully theirs. 20% share for someone who brings 80% revenue is perfectly fair.You have to fight the unjust and not accept it.Fighting unjust isnt being a cry baby, its about preserving your dignity.

 

I dont mind BCCI pulling out of CT or other ICC events if this preserves Indian Cricket in the long term.

 fantastic post

[maniac]

1 hour ago, Cricketics said:

I lived and grew up in a country where I don't have this thinking like you do right now "goras will stick together". We clearly have culture difference and hence you think different and I do different.

 

I am not judging you and saying that you are wrong and I am right, just that I do not agree with that sentiments  "goras sticking togethe" thing.

 

 

I have been in this country enough to realize that goras, black people, brown people yellows  all stick together on their own groups

 

sure I can talk NFL for a while with the average American  but there is only so much and I am just trying to make it through  the social interaction.... hell I got along more with a Punjabi ABCD at work who didn't care about cricket who is one of my best friends now than a British immigrant white person who actually followed cricket from time to time.

Edited April 27, 2017 by maniac

[maniac]

1 hour ago, Cricketics said:

It can, like I mentioned we have long NHL and NFL season and BCCi can surely make IPL bigger and better but do we need it?

 

Don't you want more international cricket than just t20s of IPL?

 

Don't you rather watch India play than watch IPL t20s?

 

Pulling out means we are robbing players like Pant, Bumrah etc from playing their first ever ICC tournament.

 

This is bad, not good for Indian cricket.

 

 

 

I would rather watch reruns of IPL seasons than a Srilanka vs bangladesh test or a pak vs wi T20 in UAE 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Cricketics said:

There is money to be made but we can't stop international cricket of India.  Opting out from ICC tournament is not the way to do it.

 

Of course I follow NFL and NHL and I know we fan make this IPL bigger and better with time but I don't care for that that much as I want India playing more internatioanl cricket, just like how i have seen cricket growing up.

 

 

Bumrah and players like Pant would have gotten a chance to play in their first ever ICC tournament. They deserved it every bit, we are kind of robbing that experience for them.

 

 

 

Why the heck not ? I do not agree with the notion of preserving international cricket at all costs. Yes, it has a place. But if we are getting real crappy returns from international cricket and getting shafted by the rest of the cricket playing community, why the heck should we not go for a form of cricket that is more entertaining and valuable in sheer, quantify terms ?

Screw international experience. Players care for international experience due to prestige and money from advertisements resulting from international cricket's prestige. Prestige comes form money. The entire reason international cricket is the most prestigeous, is because the best players play it. Entire reason best players play international cricket, is because it, since 1950s to late mid 2000s, paid more than any other form of cricket. Stands to reason, since money talks, if we ditch international cricket and played cricket where there is more money, *IT* will become the most prestigious over due time. 

Given the option of either cow-towing the ICC line and playing the ICC tournament versus making an extra 1-2 million bucks over an extended IPL season, i'd be shocked if Bumrah or Pant give two flying-fs about ICC tournaments. 

[Cricketics]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

I have been in this country enough to realize that goras, black people, brown people yellows  all stick together on their own groups

 

sure I can talk NFL for a while with the average American  but there is only so much and I am just trying to make it through  the social interaction.... hell I got along more with a Punjabi ABCD at work who didn't care about cricket who is one of my best friends now than a British immigrant white person who actually followed cricket from time to time.

Doesn't change the fact that Internatioanal cricket is more important than opting out from a tournament even though we deserve the money.

 

[Muloghonto]

49 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

I only called the ego on the part where we say "game can't continue without India" which many seem to say.

 

 

That is not true and it is arrogance if it is not, then i don't know what it is.

 

 

 

It is not arrogance, it is basic fact.

India generates 50-60% of the game's revenue directly. And it is a lot more focussed at the best player-end, because it is 1 nation with 1 pie. 

Without India, cricket loses 50-60% revenue. But more to the point, the thousands of cricket professionals in any capacity in India aren't gonna go 'balls, screw you, evil ICC, lets find another job', they will compete with cricket. 

This will lead to divided revenues because if India withdraws from ICC but keeps its doors open to foreign players in IPL, the rest of the cricketing world will be batting at -20 to 25 players of top quality out of their team requirements. 

 

This is basic math, not arrogance. 

 

[Cricketics]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Why the heck not ? I do not agree with the notion of preserving international cricket at all costs. Yes, it has a place. But if we are getting real crappy returns from international cricket and getting shafted by the rest of the cricket playing community, why the heck should we not go for a form of cricket that is more entertaining and valuable in sheer, quantify terms ?

Screw international experience. Players care for international experience due to prestige and money from advertisements resulting from international cricket's prestige. Prestige comes form money. The entire reason international cricket is the most prestigeous, is because the best players play it. Entire reason best players play international cricket, is because it, since 1950s to late mid 2000s, paid more than any other form of cricket. Stands to reason, since money talks, if we ditch international cricket and played cricket where there is more money, *IT* will become the most prestigious over due time. 

Given the option of either cow-towing the ICC line and playing the ICC tournament versus making an extra 1-2 million bucks over an extended IPL season, i'd be shocked if Bumrah or Pant give two flying-fs about ICC tournaments. 

To each his own. I like cricket on the whole, have fallen in love the peagues like BBl, and IPl but still nothing like international cricket, beating another nation.

 

 

[maniac]

6 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Doesn't change the fact that Internatioanal cricket is more important than opting out from a tournament even though we deserve the money.

 

International cricket needs India more than India needs international cricket.

 

you can add may be give or take 5000 people more to the registered icfrs out of whom there will be some non fans of test cricket give a fk about bilateral games be it LOIs leave alone test cricket.

 

outside of IPL, World Cup or Wt20 or maybe an odd Pakistan series that too if it's played after a long time and not every other week like we did on and off in 90s or early 2000s the rest of the Indian population don't give a fk.

Edited April 27, 2017 by maniac

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Doesn't change the fact that Internatioanal cricket is more important than opting out from a tournament even though we deserve the money.

 

Thats not a fact, thats an opinion. Facts is money. Some players, like people, will choose money, some will want to represent nation. Cricket can easily in 10-15 years go the way of Tennis, atleast for India: where IPL is the 'free for all, who performs, gets paid' and international cricket = davis cup. 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Cricketics said:

To each his own. I like cricket on the whole, have fallen in love the peagues like BBl, and IPl but still nothing like international cricket, beating another nation.

 

 

Give it time and that will change. Just like in NHL, players and fans care more about stanley cup than any other international event bar olympic gold. Cricket too can become like that, where its all about IPL cup and only thing people care about outside of it, is world cup. 

 

I understand your position and i share it somewhat. But one does not shaft the country that makes cricket run, in terms of money and then expect them to prop up a system that inherently generates less money than 'going on our own'.

 

[Cricketics]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

It is not arrogance, it is basic fact.

India generates 50-60% of the game's revenue directly. And it is a lot more focussed at the best player-end, because it is 1 nation with 1 pie. 

Without India, cricket loses 50-60% revenue. But more to the point, the thousands of cricket professionals in any capacity in India aren't gonna go 'balls, screw you, evil ICC, lets find another job', they will compete with cricket. 

This will lead to divided revenues because if India withdraws from ICC but keeps its doors open to foreign players in IPL, the rest of the cricketing world will be batting at -20 to 25 players of top quality out of their team requirements. 

 

This is basic math, not arrogance. 

 

No one denying the math, I keep saying we deserve the money, but if a rich guy calls a begger on the street by names because he doesn't have a home, thats arrogance to me.

 

BCCI is the rich here. If they try to pull out, I will call it being arrogant,

as simple as that.

 

Whats the harm, thats not even a big deal. Real thing is money and pull out than discussing the word "arrogance".

[Cricketics]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Give it time and that will change. Just like in NHL, players and fans care more about stanley cup than any other international event bar olympic gold. Cricket too can become like that, where its all about IPL cup and only thing people care about outside of it, is world cup. 

 

I understand your position and i share it somewhat. But one does not shaft the country that makes cricket run, in terms of money and then expect them to prop up a system that inherently generates less money than 'going on our own'.

 

Cricket is a popular game while Ice Hockey is just not popular enough barring Sweden, Russia and the big two(Canada and U.S).

 

Hence NHl will be always popular and should be.

 

 

 

[maniac]

1 minute ago, Cricketics said:

No one denying the math, I keep saying we deserve the money, but if a rich guy calls a begger on the street by names because he doesn't have a home, thats arrogance to me.

 

BCCI is the rich here. If they try to pull out, I will call it being arrogant,

as simple as that.

 

Whats the harm, thats not even a big deal. Real thing is money and pull out than discussing the word "arrogance".

Very thin line between arrogance and self respect you are confusing both.

 

i see it as matter of self respect and trust me if BCCI gives in I will be really upset

[Texan]

Has BCCI published any policy around how they will utilize the extra funds (if they get them)? Will they fund more Olympic athletes in India?

 

Last I heard, they were still embezzling funds and evading taxes. Never heard them contributing to any other lesser privileged Indian sports. The top BCCI office bearers until recently were all politicians. Where are these new funds going? 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the BCCI if they want to claim more funds, but show me how those are going to benefit Indians who pay their bills. If they can't show me how it is going to benefit Indians, then I don't want to see them hold a tournament like CT to ransom. 

[maniac]

Just now, Texan said:

Has BCCI published any policy around how they will utilize the extra funds (if they get them)? Will they fund more Olympic athletes in India?

 

Last I heard, they were still embezzling funds and evading taxes. Never heard them contributing to any other lesser privileged Indian sports. The top BCCI office bearers until recently were all politicians. Where are these new funds going? 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the BCCI if they want to claim more funds, but show me how those are going to benefit Indians who pay their bills. If they can't show me how it is going to benefit Indians, then I don't want to see them hold a tournament like CT to ransom. 

Who cares I rather see a corrupt Indian babu building an extra house and employing more people in that process than giving a free handout.

 

now even if say Zimbabwe or Afghanistan or Ireland benefit from this "technical" handout ICC will get the credit and not india so it's a lose lose situation 

[Cricketics]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

Very thin line between arrogance and self respect you are confusing both.

 

i see it as matter of self respect and trust me if BCCI gives in I will be really upset

What self respect. Screw self respect, everyone has self respect.

 

As if all will respect them more after all the drama which has taken place by trying to opt out. Not that they need someone's respect but they have already asked for their amount, enough self respect there. Now just release the squad and play.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Cricket is a popular game while Ice Hockey is just not popular enough barring Sweden, Russia and the big two(Canada and U.S).

 

Hence NHl will be always popular and should be.

 

 

 

Actually cricket is a lot like hockey. One market (North America/NHL for Hockey, India for cricket) generates 60-75% of the revenue. Not everyone plays cricket or hockey and both sports have less than half a dozen nations that are 'great powers or better' of the game. 

We can turn cricket into something similar too.

 

15 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

No one denying the math, I keep saying we deserve the money, but if a rich guy calls a begger on the street by names because he doesn't have a home, thats arrogance to me.

 

BCCI is the rich here. If they try to pull out, I will call it being arrogant,

as simple as that.

 

Whats the harm, thats not even a big deal. Real thing is money and pull out than discussing the word "arrogance".

Thats not what it is at all. 
This is the beggar 'forcing the rich guy' to stick with tradition and not get his fair share of 'tradition's income potential' and ditch the rich guy going his own way and doing his own thing. 

Saying 'we are out because we are being given a crappy deal' isn't arrogant, its professionalism. Try negotiating a movie deal with Amir Khan for  1 lakh rupees. He will pull out too- not because he is arrogant, but because it is not a fair deal.