BCCI rejects Shashank Manohar's offer of additional $ 100 million

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

All 3 of India, Australia and England have 2 major ICC tournaments between 2015 and 2023 (the years over which the revenue model is designed to be used for/being suggested to be changed for). If anything England have got the worse end of the stick getting the Champions Trophy compared to the far more financially lucrative World T20. As a result of that using it in the calculations for the revenue sharing model is a bit silly.

What's silly is your refusal to accept facts when they are clear as day.  Weren't you arguing with me a few weeks ago about how the BCCI's share isn't cut by that much?  Would be nice if you actually owned up and agreed that a cut from $570 mm to $290 mm is massive.  

 

And England got to host the 2nd ever T20 world cup.  Why would they get it again, before the other countries had a chance?  Way to move the goalposts to try and somehow pretend that England "got the worse end" - utter nonsense.

 

You might want to google how much CA pocketed from hosting the 2015 ODI World Cup.   Why shouldn't that be included when considering what all the countries are getting from the ICC?   

 

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by sandeep

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

So you mean hypothetically hosting an international tournament again after only another 2 other editions of that tournament have been hosted? Kind of like India hosting the 2011 world cup, then hosting it again after just another 2 world cups?

 

The fact of the matter is that the allocation of major tournaments in the revenue cycle being debated is 2 to each of the 'big 3' nations with England getting the least financially lucrative pairing of the 3. Arguing that the fact that the ECBs profits from their 2 ICC tournaments should be considered as an addition to their ICC funding when the other 2 'big 3' nations will be getting the exact same financial benefit (albeit larger) in that revenue cycle is ludicrous.

Each 'world' tournament has its own rotation policy - which is negotiated within the ICC framework.  By the way, India has yet to host a world cup entirely on its own.  Each world cup hosted in India was shared with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.  So out of 9 test countries, 4 countries definitely have a right to host it 1 out of 3 times.   How is that unfair?  

 

 If anything, looking at the historical hosting record, England have always had an unfairly larger share of hosting.  First 3 ODI world cups?  in England.  In fact, in response to India's bid for the 1st ever ODI world cup in 1987 - jointly hosted with SL and Pakistan btw - the ECB infamously launched "Project Snow" - an attempt at 'restoring' control of the ICC to England and Australia.  Google it.  Educate yourself.  

 

And England is the only country to be hosting the Champions trophy three times.   This will be the second successive champions trophy to be held in England.  Why?   You think others like South Africa, India, SL, Bangladesh, wouldn't want to or couldn't do it?   Shamelessly hogging the money-making opportunities and then attempting to claim that you are getting the "worse end".  Ignorant Faux-News-type attitude at its best.  No wonder "alternative facts" has become such a buzzword.  I call it lies.  Plain and simple.  

 

Secondly, if you want to exclude the revenue from the tournaments from the accounting, then don't shamelessly include the "expenses" acrued either.  ECB bought land and are building brand new headquarters for themselves in London, and passing that cost on to the ICC - as cost of hosting the world cup.  This has not been done by any other country in ICC history.  And this cost and others, have been added to the revenue model.  You can't have it both ways.  

 

Fact of the matter is that the "reforms" from the big 3 are solely aimed at cutting India's share down and distributing the spoils to others - primarily the big 2, with just enough crumbs thrown towards the others to garner votes.   This bold attempt at re-structuring the ICC's finances was unsurprisingly timed to take effect when the BCCI was caught in internal turmoil - hence the unseemly rush to ram through the changes before the BCCI could organize any sort of response.   Unfortunately, its not a done deal yet, and still a work in progress. Let's see how it plays out.  

[horizonspeaks]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/champions-trophy-2017/top-stories/bcci-misses-deadline-for-naming-indias-champions-trophy-squad/articleshow/58365872.cms

 

Quote

Till late evening, the BCCI has not officially sought an extension, which many could perceive as a show of defiance

 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, horizonspeaks said:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/champions-trophy-2017/top-stories/bcci-misses-deadline-for-naming-indias-champions-trophy-squad/articleshow/58365872.cms

 

 

BCCI is sending a message through its silence on the squad announcement.  ICC better pay attention.  

 

I'm hoping that the current personnel entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with the ICC do their jobs properly.  Its by no means a losing hand here.   But it does require proper preparation and execution.   ECB and its minions can't just plan a radical transformation of the ICC - its revenues, its voting structures, without including BCCI in the process.   

 

SL, Bang, Zim are 99% going to support BCCI.  Windies potentially as well.  Don't forget, BCCI recently forgave a $44 million debt to the WICB over their mismanagement of the players strike during the India tour.  Pakistan is currently playing footsie with Giles Clarke -while CA and the Chokers are also on the ECB side of the fence.  That's not going to be enough to make this stick.  

 

BCCI needs to play the short as well as the long game here.  Prevent this nonsense from going through as step 1. But have elephantine memories regarding who were responsible.  Let's see if Giles Clarke is able to become the next ICC Chairman or not.   

[Gollum]

18 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Each 'world' tournament has its own rotation policy - which is negotiated within the ICC framework.  By the way, India has yet to host a world cup entirely on its own.  Each world cup hosted in India was shared with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.  So out of 9 test countries, 4 countries definitely have a right to host it 1 out of 3 times.   How is that unfair?  

 

 If anything, looking at the historical hosting record, England have always had an unfairly larger share of hosting.  First 3 ODI world cups?  in England.  In fact, in response to India's bid for the 1st ever ODI world cup in 1987 - jointly hosted with SL and Pakistan btw - the ECB infamously launched "Project Snow" - an attempt at 'restoring' control of the ICC to England and Australia.  Google it.  Educate yourself.  

 

And England is the only country to be hosting the Champions trophy three times.   This will be the second successive champions trophy to be held in England.  Why?   You think others like South Africa, India, SL, Bangladesh, wouldn't want to or couldn't do it?   Shamelessly hogging the money-making opportunities and then attempting to claim that you are getting the "worse end".  Ignorant Faux-News-type attitude at its best.  No wonder "alternative facts" has become such a buzzword.  I call it lies.  Plain and simple.  

 

Secondly, if you want to exclude the revenue from the tournaments from the accounting, then don't shamelessly include the "expenses" acrued either.  ECB bought land and are building brand new headquarters for themselves in London, and passing that cost on to the ICC - as cost of hosting the world cup.  This has not been done by any other country in ICC history.  And this cost and others, have been added to the revenue model.  You can't have it both ways.  

 

Fact of the matter is that the "reforms" from the big 3 are solely aimed at cutting India's share down and distributing the spoils to others - primarily the big 2, with just enough crumbs thrown towards the others to garner votes.   This bold attempt at re-structuring the ICC's finances was unsurprisingly timed to take effect when the BCCI was caught in internal turmoil - hence the unseemly rush to ram through the changes before the BCCI could organize any sort of response.   Unfortunately, its not a done deal yet, and still a work in progress. Let's see how it plays out.  

Top post.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

England hosted the world cup for the first 3 editions over 30 years back, therefore should receive reduced funding from the ICC for the rest of time to compensate for it...?

No - just pointing out that historically England have gotten more than their fair share of hosting it.  

Quote

I'm sure the ECB would have happily traded the Champions trophy for the t20 world cup that both fall in this revenue cycle if the BCCI wanted to.

 

So you want England to host the T20 world cup for the 2nd time in 2016, while India, which had never gotten to host it till then shouldn't have?  How is that fair?    

 

Quote

This is the news that came from the 'BCCI sources' who also 'released the budget' of the 2017CT to the press which was shortly after revealed by Cricinfo to be believed to be over twice the value of the actual budget? Yes the ICC (not the ECB) intend to (and presumably already have now) logically purchase a premises in the UK to house their staff for the champions trophy, womens world cup and mens world cup there over the next year. If they then sell that on to the ECB or use it as the ICC Europe office (as have been reported to be the 2 most likely options) then what is the issue with that?

So BCCI's released numbers are unreliable while Cricinfo's aren't?  Says who?  To me, its shamelessly clear from the editorial spin and the information slants, which side the cricinfo board is favoring.  But let's leave that aside.

 

At least you are accepting the fact that ECB is "logically" purchasing premises.   Is the ECB currently homeless?   If it needs additional offices for staff, you are telling me that offices can't be rented out?  That 2 years of rent would cost more than building brand new offices?  Did CA build offices for hosting the 2015 WC?  Did the West Indies do it when the hosted the 2007 world cup and 2010 T20 World Cup?    Of course you don't see any issue with the ICC funding the ECB's office expansion.  Why would you.  Just like you don't see any issue with ECB hosting Champions trophy twice in a row - you actually are using that to justify the office expansion.  That's nice.  

 

 

 

[Ultimate_Game]

India and BCCI would do well to keep in mind that there's no "Big 3". It was and has always been the Big 2 with England and Australia. I say phuck the Big 2 and get the others on your side coz you can never rely on the likes of ECB and CA as your partners. having them on your side is like having "asteen ke saanp" who will bite you at the first opportunity they get.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Ultimate_Game said:

India and BCCI would do well to keep in mind that there's no "Big 3". It was and has always been the Big 2 with England and Australia. I say phuck the Big 2 and get the others on your side coz you can never rely on the likes of ECB and CA as your partners. having them on your side is like having "asteen ke saanp" who will bite you at the first opportunity they get.

This has become abundantly clear with this new "reform" model.  All that hogwash about adding votes for "Women's cricket, Associate members, and an "administrative" director is an attempt to get past the BCCI's strong voting bloc in the current system.   

 

Somehow, it has become gospel for cricket media and non-Indian fans, that "growing global cricket, more $$ for associates, women's cricket can only come if BCCI accepts being screwed out of its share of the revenue".   That is just propaganda and lies.  

 

Problem is that the ICC's funding needs to be audited.  What has it done for growing the game in the last 15 years?   Ever since Jagmon Dalmiya started the Champions Trophy tournament 20 years ago, primarily as a vehicle to generate funds for the ICC - the organization must have easily made billion+ dollars.  Where has the money gone?  How has it been spent?    

 

But no.  Let's all talk about how BCCI is the bad guy, because they are not quietly accepting a 50% cut in their share.  For the "good" of cricket.   

 

The game of cricket is in good financial health today, thanks to the billions of dollars of revenue generated by the Indian market.  And it will keep generating this money for Cricket.  And the money definitely should be used to funnel money into newer members such as Ireland, Afghanistan and other associates.  But there is no need to rob BCCI and Indian cricket to achieve this.   That is the slimy spin doctored by the ECB and its cohorts.   Phuck the PR, and media management.  First stop the daylight robbery.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

The ECB aren't purchasing anything, the ICC are with the reported possibility of selling it on to the ECB (Or using it for the ICCs European employees). To be honest there's a lack of information on this topic around so can't comment on it that much, given it's been reported the office will be in London I doubt it's being built but would expect it's being rented.

 

 

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

I would personally place far more trust in a figure supplied by Cricinfo containing a breakdown of roughly where how much of the money will be going for each aspect of a tournament than another reported value using only a statement for a completely unnamed BCCI source.

Why does the ICC need to purchase facilities in London?  They are headquartered in Dubai.  Why do they need to buy an office building and then sell it to the ECB?  Defies logic.  Of course you don't want to comment on this issue - you'd rather duck it and pretend its not happening. Just like you are pretending that you weren't wrong about BCCI's massive reduction in revenue.    How about you man up and accept that you were wrong in down-playing the BCCI's loss in the new model - compared to ECB and CA.   Now that your trusted and beloved Cricinfo has reported that it was close to 50%.  

 

Let's leave aside media competency and bias questions.  Let's stick to the facts - new model asks the BCCI to cut its share by $280 million,  while CA gives up a couple of million and ECB 10 or 20.   How do you justify that?  

 

[BeautifulGame]

I would personally place far more trust in a figure supplied by Cricinfo containing a breakdown of roughly where and how much of the money will be going for each aspect of the tournament than another reported value using only a statement for a completely unnamed BCCI source.

 

And which official "named" sources give it to Cricinfo lol

 

All have their agenda of their own.Cricinfo always had an anti-BCCI bias ever since BCCI asked it pay for the BCCI services it used for free.

[horizonspeaks]

2 minutes ago, Stumped said:

You appear to be trying to twist my words here, I stated there was a lack of information on the topic (therefore most of what would be said on it here would be pure speculation) so couldn't say too much about it, not didn't want to comment on it.

 

For your benefit I've actually just tried to look into it a bit more. The ICC want facilities in London to base their 'Local Organising Committee' for the 3 ICC events they'll be running their over the next 2 and a bit years. According to the following article, contrary to the unnamed BCCIs sources claims that the ICC intends to rent an office then purchase it to give to the ECB the office itself will be based in an extension of the ECBs current offices (at Lords), specifically because it's cheaper than renting an office.

 

 

 

 

Not sure where you get the idea that I was downplaying the BCCIs losses under the proposed new financial model, like anyone else I would have been referencing the values that were being chucked around at the time, infact I'm still struggling to find up to date figures anywhere for anyone except the BCCI.

 

If we go by your logic however and consider that a reduction in the loss of $100mn (given how business works negotiation was probably already considered a factor of the original cut) has already been offered taking it down to $180mn, considering Australia made around $40mn from the 2015 world cup as co-hosts you'd expect India to make significantly more than that as the singular hosts with their much larger market,  then also consid the profits they'd have made from the t20 world cup last year (which unfortunately don't seem to be available clearly online), that probably takes the effective reduction, taking into account Indias 2 major ICC events in the 8 year financial cycle, to a value of $100mn at most. Divide that figure by 8 for each year and you'd be left with a maximum $12.5mn reduction per year , fairly small compared to the revenue they take in every year. The surplus from the IPL alone last year was $32mn expected to rise to $55mn this year which makes that maximum figure look fairly small in comparison.

 

7

Your understanding of cricket revenues is fundamentally wrong. The advantage of market goes entirely to ICC as they sell the TV broadcasting rights. The gate-money collected is typically lower in India compared to that in Australia as the latter has much higher per capita income. On top of that, ICC paid less hosting fee to the stadiums that it does for ICC Champions Trophy and ICC WC 2015. 

The larger market advantage is going entirely to ICC. That's where the process is fundamentally flawed. 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

You appear to be trying to twist my words here, I stated there was a lack of information on the topic (therefore most of what would be said on it here would be pure speculation) so couldn't say too much about it, not didn't want to comment on it.

 

For your benefit I've actually just tried to look into it a bit more. The ICC want facilities in London to base their 'Local Organising Committee' for the 3 ICC events they'll be running their over the next 2 and a bit years. According to the following article, contrary to the unnamed BCCIs sources claims that the ICC intends to rent an office then purchase it to give to the ECB the office itself will be based in an extension of the ECBs current offices (at Lords), specifically because it's cheaper than renting an office.

 

 

 

 

Not sure where you get the idea that I was downplaying the BCCIs losses under the proposed new financial model, like anyone else I would have been referencing the values that were being chucked around at the time, infact I'm still struggling to find up to date figures anywhere for anyone except the BCCI.

 

If we go by your logic however and consider that a reduction in the loss of $100mn (given how business works negotiation was probably already considered a factor of the original cut) has already been offered taking it down to $180mn, considering Australia made around $40mn from the 2015 world cup as co-hosts you'd expect India to make significantly more than that as the singular hosts with their much larger market,  then also consid the profits they'd have made from the t20 world cup last year (which unfortunately don't seem to be available clearly online), that probably takes the effective reduction, taking into account Indias 2 major ICC events in the 8 year financial cycle, to a value of $100mn at most. Divide that figure by 8 for each year and you'd be left with a maximum $12.5mn reduction per year , fairly small compared to the revenue they take in every year. The surplus from the IPL alone last year was $32mn expected to rise to $55mn this year which makes that maximum figure look fairly small in comparison.

 

 

And why does this mysterious LOC have so much work to do for these tournaments that are to be held in England?  Do they have to organize facilities in the Sahara desert or something?   Why no other previous tournaments needed a similar committee and new buildings to do groundwork for 2 years?  What special work are they doing for this tournament that justifies the need for this unique arrangement? Does England not have adequate facilities for hosting cricket matches? Occam's razor is your friend.   Its creative accounting.  

 

And don't try to convince me that Indian cricket can "afford" the cut.   ECB can afford the cuts as well, so can CA.  Why aren't they being similarly generous?  For the "good" of cricket?   

 

 

 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

No, there's always been a LOC for the ICC tournaments. Infact the following ICC source states that the LOC for the 2015 world cup had 2 offices, one in either host country :

 

Again, if there's always been an LOC, why the need to purchase offices for them, instead of renting them?  What's so special this time around?  Are they operating in frontier land, where cricket previously didn't exist?  Or is England suddenly a 3rd world nation that doesn't have adequate office space available?   

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

I believe this was covered in the first half of post #36, the LOC office is being built as a pre-fabricated extension to the ECB offices, because it's actually cheaper than renting the office space in London for that period to cover the 3 tournaments.

And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, and Worli.    Will throw in the Taj Mahal for free if you buy both bridges.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

What, you don't believe that building a quick pre-fabricated office extension on land the ECB already own would be cheaper for the ICC than renting an office in London for 4 years?

why would they need to rent the office for 4 years?  Is that how long the "LOC" was in India for WC 2011?  or in Aus/NZ for 2015?   

 

 

[horizonspeaks]

Why don't they build the ICC office in India, if 70% of the revenue is anyway generated here.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, horizonspeaks said:

Why don't they build the ICC office in India, if 70% of the revenue is anyway generated here.

Taxes.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

Can't find anything exact on that, but the fact that the head of the 2015 world cup LOC was appointed in November 2011 suggests to me that they start working on their organising fairly early. Remember that there's also the 2 other ICC events 2 years prior to the 2019 world cup in England. Would quite probably be more cost effective to rent an office for the entire time than pay the premiums of multiple short leases.

How convenient for the ECB then.   Ready to buy that bridge?  

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Stumped said:

Might as well add in here that the extension to the ECB offices (and the rest of the building) will then be demolished a couple of years after as part of Lords redevelopment. Not exactly beneficial to the ECB is it.

Source?  

[sandeep]

16 minutes ago, Stumped said:

 

 

The current ECB building is where the new East Gate building is at 4B on the diagram.

 

https://www.lords.org/news/2013/may/mcc-announces-a-new-lords-masterplan/

None of this explains why this "LOC" needs office space for 4 years in London.