How the ICC rushed to plunder BCCI's treasures, much like the tale of Ali Baba and Cassim

[sandeep]

18 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Why the heck should we pay for Pakistan of all countries ?

Because "we" are not paying them directly.  They are getting a share of ICC revenue - which in reality a bulk is generated by Indian fans and the Indian TV revenue.  

[Malcolm Merlyn]

1 hour ago, kosingh said:

 

Yeah I haven't seen Malcolm's numbers either.  I remember seeing other figures, less extreme.

Convert figures to percentage.

 

India's reduction is close to 35%.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

35 minutes ago, sandeep said:

If they can get close to 430, 440, I think that would be fair and acceptable.  

 

Its now 290 not even 357. As you see England's cut is 1%

 

Next time please do a bit of googling before calling people Feku.

[G_B_]

 

So on a per capita basis even a nation like Pakistan gets more than India from the ICC revenues.

 

On a per capita basis India is the poorest cricket nation. 

 

Then you will have the same chumps lambasting the BCCI for not providing infra for the poor to participate.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

I wonder how long before this reaches the Parliament.

[gattaca]

50 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Because "we" are not paying them directly.  They are getting a share of ICC revenue - which in reality a bulk is generated by Indian fans and the Indian TV revenue.  

Which should be rightfully give to India.

[sandeep]

41 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Which should be rightfully give to India.

You want all ICC revenue to be given to India, because its coming from Indian TV companies - that's a silly and foolish expectation. 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

Its now 290 not even 357. As you see England's cut is 1%

 

Next time please do a bit of googling before calling people Feku.

Still waiting on the source that shows this.  Again, I'm with you on the general point, that this change is directed against India, and is a political move to slice away India's share of revenue and distribute it to the rest - with the gangleaders - Eng/Aus getting the most.  

 

But you shouldn't rely on fudged up numbers to make that point.

[sandeep]

10 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Just like all the money star pay the BCCI to televise India games in India should rightfully be given to the countries that tour India?

Don't go after the soft target.  Most Indian fans would agree that Indian revenues should be used to subsidize world cricket.  But not to enrich the already rich like Eng/Oz.   Why is it that out of the "big three" only BCCI is the one which has to give up a chunk of the ICC revenue while the other 2 get to keep largely the same amount?   Why is that this change was attempted at a time when BCCI is in legal turmoil and unable to organize itself and/or reach out to its allies?  

[sandeep]

23 minutes ago, Stumped said:

The ECB are facing a 23% reduction on their cut. If that's 'largely the same amount' then is the BCCIs 30% reduction in their cut really much of a reduction...?

Reality is neither of us know the numbers in question.  And even assuming that the numbers are correct, why should the BCCI give up a bigger chunk than the ECB?  Besides, ECB are also getting compensated by hosting a world cup this cycle - that's a massive chunk of revenue as we all know.  

 

Why does Australia get away with 1% reduction?  Plain and simple, this is a political power play to take a big chunk of the revenue away from BCCI, and the ICC is trying to push it through at a time when the BCCI is in internal turmoil legally.  

[gattaca]

53 minutes ago, sandeep said:

You want all ICC revenue to be given to India, because its coming from Indian TV companies - that's a silly and foolish expectation. 

Isn't ICC taking their cut already but now India is loosing more to ICC ? But the bigger cut is distributed to other countries.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

56 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Still waiting on the source that shows this.  Again, I'm with you on the general point, that this change is directed against India, and is a political move to slice away India's share of revenue and distribute it to the rest - with the gangleaders - Eng/Aus getting the most.  

 

But you shouldn't rely on fudged up numbers to make that point.

The graphics posted here shows that India will take a 6% cut from 21% to 15% and ECB will take a cut of 1% from 6.6% to 5.6%.This was before the meeting.

 

Since then the absolute figure for India is 290mn down from 450mn thats a reduction of 36% in absolute numbers. So if 450 represented 21% then i believe 290 represents 12-13%  roughly.

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

56 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Just like all the money star pay the BCCI to televise India games in India should rightfully be given to the countries that tour India?

 

.Then BCCI should also mop up 80% of the revenues from ICC.Also India should mop up any extra revenue that a board earns when India tour them.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

4 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Think he's asking where you're getting/calculating the absolute figure of 290mn and 450mn from.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/sports/cricket/060217/icc-cuts-bccis-revenue-by-34-per-cent.html

 

Googling helps.

[sandeep]

16 minutes ago, gattaca said:

Isn't ICC taking their cut already but now India is loosing more to ICC ? But the bigger cut is distributed to other countries.

I meant that the graphics that is circulating shows the total ICC revenue, and how it is to be distributed to member countries.  You can't expect that every dollar that originated from India, should be given back to BCCI.  That was my point.  

 

I find it laughable that the likes of ECB and CA want to keep 50-80 times more money per capita, than the Indian Board, and have the audacity to paint the BCCI as the villain of the piece.  

[Malcolm Merlyn]

4 minutes ago, Stumped said:

That's exactly what he was suggesting in the post I quoted .

In turn if BCCI generates more fund when AUS tours them then when SA or ENG tour them on pro rata basis,CA should collect the extra amount.

 

Only issue is you will find that all BCCI deals are on flat rate basis,nothing extra or nothing less no matter who tours,for eg STAR pays BCCI  40cr(6.2mn USD) per match no matter who the opposition is .Thats the financial marketability strength of the Indian team.So it doesnt matter who tours.

[gattaca]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

I meant that the graphics that is circulating shows the total ICC revenue, and how it is to be distributed to member countries.  You can't expect that every dollar that originated from India, should be given back to BCCI.  That was my point.  

 

I find it laughable that the likes of ECB and CA want to keep 50-80 times more money per capita, than the Indian Board, and have the audacity to paint the BCCI as the villain of the piece.  

Don't know why BCCI president never looked in to this. Except Srinivasan for all the evil he was painted as. He has done good things to Indian cricket.

[nevada]

Time to withdraw from ICC and start BCC (Bharat Cricket Council)

[MechEng]

12 hours ago, Ironhide said:

Yup, there is always has been and there will always will be a Ghar Ka Bhedi in India. Through out the thousands of years in Indian history we can find such Anti-Nationals in India who have had catastrophic impact on India. Shashank Manohar is one of such people and fulfilling his duty of backstabbing his own country.

Makes me believe that the invasions this country has endured has never been purely foreign, our people probably played a big role too.

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

The SC must let BCCI handle this and not send the inexperienced administrators there.