Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's a lot of words without any examples of me criticising anyone for their 'opinion'...
  2. Opinions? Where have I criticised anyones opinion? I criticise people for regularly posting false information and claiming it's factual (and quite often repeating that false information even after it's been shown to be untrue), that's not an opinion.
  3. My primary claim was that it was adjusted because of the WT20 was coming up (at the time in India, now the UAE of course) as I have provided a source for, the fact that that will also result in more money for the BCCI is common sense but clearly won't be stated explicitly.
  4. Source: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ind-vs-eng-sourav-ganguly-two-additional-t20is-fewer-tests-in-england-s-tour-of-india-1239883 I'd assume we can agree on the fact that 2 T20s producing more income than a test match in India is fairly obvious...
  5. I've not seen any indication that that was due to regulations and not just a precaution?
  6. The FTP is readily available online... But if you need someone to type 6 letters and make 2 clicks for you: https://icc-static-files.s3.amazonaws.com/ICC/document/2018/06/20/6dc2c8d4-e1a5-4dec-94b4-7121fab3cd7f/ICC_Tours.pdf
  7. Which part specifically? The tour was initially intended to be 3 ODIs, 3 T20Is before the WT20 and 5 tests after it therefore that's what's listed on the FTP. As we know, that later changed with some shuffling of the calendar, postponement of the WT20 and 1 test disappearing and an extra 2 T20Is appearing.
  8. Could you provide a source for rule/regulation that would have actually stopped these players from playing?
  9. Any reason the physio would have to be flown in and couldn't be one of the many qualified physios already in the country?
  10. You saw a headline from FoxSport with $75m in it and came to the conclusion that it was an English media outlet reporting a cost of £75m....? It's fairly easy to presume motives when someone makes a repetitive habit of posting false/misleading information.
  11. That figure came from an Australian outlet and was in AUD, wouldn't be like you to be spreading false information though would it .
  12. I think you've completely missed my point. Yes, there was a gap between the end of the Pakistan series and start of the India series. If the hundred didn't exist though when the ECB scheduled the summer they wouldn't have shifted the India series backwards to fill that gap, they'd have shifted everything before it forwards to fill it keeping the India series with an early-August start like the previous 2 5 test series before the hundred existed. In addition to that the dates for the series were agreed by both boards long before the rescheduled IPL dates were set. Why should the ECB
  13. The 5th test in India was traded for 2 additional T20Is because of the WT20 that was meant to be coming up and because they are more profitable to the BCCI. That's not the case for the ECB.
  14. The £20m is the value of just the broadcast deal per test on an average basis across the deal. On top of that there's then all the other forms of income that have been lost as a result of the test not going ahead as well as all the costs that would've been incurred by the morning of a test match going ahead.
  15. I've looked again at what I've written, I've very clearly made reference to the short time period between the case within the squad and the time they'd have to travel by and the possibility of getting PCR tests done for the entire squad and results returned within that period. Nowhere have I made reference to a shortage of PCR tests as you've suggested. Would appreciate if you didn't try and put words in my mouth and then double down on the lie. The tone hasn't changed at all, you've quite literally put in a bold a quote of having to work a way through the physical and mental press
  • Create New...