ICC announces review of Big-3 restructuring

[Ironhide]

The ICC has announced it will carry out a complete constitutional review of the changes brought about by the "Big Three" takeover in 2014. Moves have already begun to dismantle the system of governance proposed by the BCCI, ECB and CA two years ago, with confirmation of the expected change to make the ICC chairman an independent position.

The outcomes from the ICC board meeting on Wednesday also included removing permanent positions for India, England and Australia on the Executive Committee and the Financial & Commercial Affairs Committee - the ICC's two most powerful forums.

In a statement, the ICC said the board had "agreed to carry out a complete review of the 2014 resolutions and constitutional changes with a view to establishing governance, finance, corporate and cricketing structures that are appropriate and effective for the strategic role and function of the ICC and all of its members".

Shashank Manohar, the BCCI president who is also currently serving as ICC chairman, signalled his intention to roll back the changes overseen by his predecessor N Srinivasan in an interview last year, when he referred to "the three major countries bullying the ICC". Manohar will now head the five-man steering group set up to conduct the review, with an aim of putting forward recommendations at the ICC's annual conference in June.

Alongside Manohar on the steering group will be ECB president Giles Clarke, in his role as chairman of the F&CA Committee. Clarke was one of the architects of the ICC revamp and had been expected to run for the position of chairman. The rest of the group will comprise heads of the ICC's Governance Review Committee, Executive Committee and Associate/Affiliate Member group: Nazmul Hassan, David Peever and Andrew Armitage respectively.

The introduction of an independent chairman was intended to "avoid any potential conflicts of interest and to follow best practice principles of good governance". The ICC's next chairman, to be elected later this year, will no longer be able to hold a position on their home board, as Srinivasan and subsequently Manohar did.

Candidates to succeed Manohar must have served as an ICC director. The chairman will be able to serve for a maximum of three two-year terms.

Manohar said the board had agreed on a need for greater transparency and would reinstate the practice of Full Member boards presenting their audited accounts to the ICC on an annual basis. Three of the boards four annual meetings will now take place outside of the UAE, where the ICC is headquartered, with the Annual Conference set to be held in Edinburgh from June 27 to July 2.

"We had very purposeful and positive meetings, and the decisions taken clearly reflect that we collectively want to improve the governance in a transparent manner, not only of the ICC but also the Member Boards," Manohar said. "This, in turn, will enhance the image and quality of the sport. No Member of the ICC is bigger than the other and I am determined to make a meaningful contribution in this regard with support of all the Members."

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/968983.html

[Ironhide]

Any info on what will be done with the revenue sharing model? I would not like India getting back to that pathetic 4% share even after contributing 70%, Manohar is just going to harm the interest of his own cricket board and country to score brownie points. Wish Dalmiya was still here !! 

[Adi_91]

This is where I like N Srinivasan. He was arrogant, but made Indian cricket the most powerful voice within the ICC. 

[Ironhide]

This is where I like N Srinivasan. He was arrogant, but made Indian cricket the most powerful voice within the ICC. 

Yup, for all his faults, Srini increased India's revenue cut from the paltry 4% to 21%. Dalmiya succeeding Srini was the ideal situation for India, but now this brownoser idiot wants us to go back to 4% share even after contributing 70%. Dalmiya remembered the olden days when India had to pay other countries to tour India and he understood the importance of money required to run cricket in such a huge country with so many first class teams and also ex-players on pensions unlike other cricket boards.

[fineleg]

Now Seeni Maama is praised? Velu - where art thou?

 

Edited February 4, 2016 by fineleg

[New guy]

Any info on what will be done with the revenue sharing model? I would not like India getting back to that pathetic 4% share even after contributing 70%, Manohar is just going to harm the interest of his own cricket board and country to score brownie points. Wish Dalmiya was still here !! 

What did we do with that increased revenue and how did it help Indian cricket overall? Blindly running after revenue is not going to help Indian cricket at all. 

[Ironhide]

What did we do with that increased revenue and how did it help Indian cricket overall? Blindly running after revenue is not going to help Indian cricket at all. 

The Big three was formed recently, so we cannot gauge anything in such short term, blindly pouring money or not you need massive amount of money to run a sport in a big country like India with financial burden of running huge number of first class teams, stadiums and a pension system which drains the bank.

 

Leave all that and let us assume that we are burning this money in bonfire, even then why should we be satisfied with the paltry 4% revenue share which is the same as Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies etc.

[New guy]

 

The Big three was formed recently, so we cannot gauge anything in such short term, blindly pouring money or not you need massive amount of money to run a sport in a big country like India with financial burden of running huge number of first class teams, stadiums and a pension system which drains the bank.

 

Leave all that and let us assume that we are burning this money in bonfire, even then why should we be satisfied with the paltry 4% revenue share which is the same as Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Indies etc.

Who said it will just be 4%? Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why cannot BCCI earn an obscene amount without reducing other board's share?

[Ironhide]

Who said it will just be 4%? Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why cannot BCCI earn an obscene amount without reducing other board's share?

Who said? ICC said, they are going back to earlier model which was based on equal sharing of 4% by all ten test playing cricket boards. The noob questions you ask are hilarious as you have zero idea about both past and present revenue structure and just want to troll with " More money bad", " Too much money" like statements. From now I will avoid your foolish posts which lack any substance, try and troll someone else. 

[Zap_Brannigan]

Who said it will just be 4%? Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why cannot BCCI earn an obscene amount without reducing other board's share?

So where is this money going to come from? out of thin air?

 

I keep saying..this guy is the worst thing to happen to Indian cricket apart from Azhar and his cronies. 

[Vilander]

make futures tours programs irrelevant, make local leagues more important so that BCCI and Indian cricketers earn the benefits.

[New guy]

 

Who said? ICC said, they are going back to earlier model which was based on equal sharing of 4% by all ten test playing cricket boards. The noob questions you ask are hilarious as you have zero idea about both past and present revenue structure and just want to troll with " More money bad", " Too much money" like statements. From now I will avoid your foolish posts which lack any substance, try and troll someone else. 

So as soon as you get uncomfortable with someone opposing the easiest thing is to call them a troll. No ICC did NOT say they are going back to earlier model just that they will review the current sharing model. Secondly yes, money better invested, with both the future of international cricket and India's cricket at stake is always better than money which just goes to the officials pocket. 

 

But go ahead do call me names like noob and troll if it helps you. Also call Manohar names as you have been doing. 

[horizonspeaks]

If India has to give up some share, give it up for some Associate teams. Giving up for corrupt Zimbabwe board is ridiculous and this guy will claim righteousness in that.

[horizonspeaks]

BTW, Manohar previously said revenue sharing model is not justified but Anurag and others were not at the same line.

[horizonspeaks]

Fight has just began - 

http://www.ibnlive.com/cricketnext/news/manohar-decided-on-icc-review-without-keeping-bcci-in-the-loop-source-1199592.html

[Ironhide]

Fight has just began - 

http://www.ibnlive.com/cricketnext/news/manohar-decided-on-icc-review-without-keeping-bcci-in-the-loop-source-1199592.html

Good, Good news. Manohar is a brown noser who is on a self-promotion ego-trip, the three term ICC president criteria has been cleverly suggested by him to stick to that ICC post. BCCI member boards should remove this cancer ASAP, He is the worst thing ever to happen to Indian cricket administration .

[horizonspeaks]

The news is India intends to give back 6% back to other teams outside of big three. 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/969841.html

[Ironhide]

The news is India intends to give back 6% back to other teams outside of big three. 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/969841.html

This is not "India intends to", This is all Manohar's brainchild and he has not even consulted other members from BCCI. Manohar is behaving as it is his own money instead of Indian cricket, this man is a bigger Meglomaniac than even Srinivasan. He does not understand the infrastructure and facility disparity between India and other developed countries like New Zealand, England, Australia.

[Vilander]

 

This is not "India intends to", This is all Manohar's brainchild and he has not even consulted other members from BCCI. Manohar is behaving as it is his own money instead of Indian cricket, this man is a bigger Meglomaniac than even Srinivasan. He does not understand the infrastructure and facility disparity between India the underdeveloped country that it is and other developed countries like New Zealand, England, Australia.

Corrected, hey India is not a developed country. India is a third world country, underdeveloped or developing in some areas. Poor infra is norm for India.

[Vilander]

btw srini mama was a cancer, shashank manohar is good..he is pacifist, white apologist..gives up Indian revenue to other countries...he is good..