BCCI loses ICC vote 2-8 .ICC resolution passed and Big three model struck down

[surajmal]

Just now, Stumped said:

I think you've misunderstood, the boards don't pay anything to the ICC directly. The pool that the ICC money is distributed from is the ICC's income from sponsorships, media rights etc.

Sponsors are Indians. BCCI can lobby indian govt. to block the payments. 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Sponsors are Indians. BCCI can lobby indian govt. to block the payments. 

 

Has happened in the past.

[surajmal]

1 minute ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

Has happened in the past.

legal case is rock solid. Our money going to a terrorist country that is hell bent on killing us. 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, surajmal said:

Coimbatore, Mysore/Vizag, Kanpur, Indore, Noida, Chennai (Pune). 14 team league. 

Not enough quality players - would dilute the league and quality of games.  10 teams next year.  12 teams in 3 years.   Then assess how things are.  12 teams gives you 2 'divisions' with 6 teams each - Each of the 6 can play more games within the division, and a few across divisions.  Division champions play a best of 3 series for the IPL title.  Easily add 3 weeks to the season without breaking a sweat.  I think 16 teams 7-10 years from now is very realistic - and can be supported by the Indian market, but can't do that right away.  

 

Pune and Gujarat have demonstrated viability.  Rajasthan and CSK are proven franchises.  There is absolutely no reason why IPL won't be a 10 team league next year.  

 

I would move up the start date of the season - late winter and early spring is better weather for cricket in India anyway.  Eventually start around Feb 10th or so.   This will relegate any chachundar  pretender leagues to domestic players and rejected kachras.  There's no way the top players would forego their IPL earnings to go play in the desert for pennies on the dollar.  

[Asim]

Make 20-25 IPL teams, play it for 365 days an year...

Edited April 26, 2017 by Asim

[KeyboardWarrior]

4 minutes ago, Asim said:

Make 20-25 IPL teams, play it for 365 days an year...

thats good idea ..... 

[surajmal]

2 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Even if they decided to go down what is quite a legally dodgy route (a government blocking payments from private companies to act in the interest of another private company), a quick look at the 11 major ICC sponsors for the 2016 T20 world cup and 2015 world cup and only 3 of them are actually headquartered in India.

 

Reliance

MRF

Castrol India

 

LG

Pepsi

Emirates

MoneyGram

Nissan

Hyundai

Oppo

Reebok

 

Others are heavily invested in India and it is because of that they are sponsoring cricket events. If they don't play ball, India has levers. 

[surajmal]

3 minutes ago, Stumped said:

So now you want a government to blackmail massive international companies based in other countries on behalf of what is essentially another private company? Think that's a bit more than dodgy.

If that money is used to kill its citizens, yes. Anyone who has a problem with India protecting its citizens, can kiss my ass. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by surajmal

[Vilander]

45 minutes ago, surajmal said:

How are the payments to ICC done? Is there anyway BCCI can stall the payments for the next year or so, until IPL has played its first expanded season that is? Because at that point, once the feasibility of a full season of expanded IPL has been proven, foreign players will be forced to choose. No way Gora boards can block their players from earning millions? Aus and Eng can try but NZ players can't afford not to play in IPL and considering the state of South african cricket, if their best players could be assured of 3-4-5 million earnings yearly, they will jump ship in a hurry.

And then BCCI can withdraw from ICC for good. 

I think the point is taxation, the percentage of proceeds from the events in India that need to be remitted to ICC those could be taxed, if its deemed unfair trade practice on part of ICC, Indian govt could freeze payment i suppose. Any legal experts in forex/global trade transactions could throw some light.

[BeautifulGame]

I think the point is taxation, the percentage of proceeds from the events in India that need to be remitted to ICC those could be taxed, if its deemed unfair trade practice on part of ICC, Indian govt could freeze payment i suppose. Any legal experts in forex/global trade transactions could throw some light.

 

They would already have been taxed in such cases.

 

So not sure what u are referring to.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

39 minutes ago, Stumped said:

So now you want a government to blackmail massive international companies based in other countries on behalf of what is essentially another private company? Think that's a bit more than dodgy.

The govt doesnt need to do anything. The negative publicity/protests againist ICC will be enough for any company which wants to be involved in India to step away from ICC.

 

BCCI is not a pvt. company.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

36 minutes ago, Vilander said:

I think the point is taxation, the percentage of proceeds from the events in India that need to be remitted to ICC those could be taxed, if its deemed unfair trade practice on part of ICC, Indian govt could freeze payment i suppose. Any legal experts in forex/global trade transactions could throw some light.

 

30 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

 

They would already have been taxed in such cases.

 

So not sure what u are referring to.

 

A repeat of this will do us fine.

 

http://www.financialexpress.com/archive/no-forex-for-world-cup-if-icc-acts-funny-rules-hc/71135/

[wanted_desi]

India should stop playing Zimbawe etc.

[Austin 3:!6]

BCCI must teach Bangladeshi minnow board a lesson. Atleast in Pakistan's case I can accept they were always opposing BCCI. But BCB president until few days ago were given an impression that they are with India but suddenly back stabbed when we required them the most. Ungrateful idiots.

[cowboysfan]

I understand pulling out CT now will be hard especially with broadcasters who have such a pull but i think in this case its warranted.

[horizonspeaks]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/bcci-to-call-for-sgm-after-icc-humiliation-over-revenue-reforms/story-szA98Ec74ibV1VPKLB0VKI.html

 

Quote

 

“We have been humiliated. Some of the members, especially Cricket Australia’s, were extremely rude to us and spurned our reasonable offer. Worse was Shashank Manohar’s reaction. We had a meeting with ECB, CA and him, and even though others were listening, Manohar spurned us,” said a Board source privy to the developments in Dubai.

 

Acting BCCI president CK Khanna told HT, “We have called for a Special General Meeting (SGM) once the officials who have gone there are back and the house will decide on the future course of action.”

 

 

 

[horizonspeaks]

If BCCI comes out, nothing could make us loser. 

1) For a while, we could be happy that our poor country is not subsidizing the rich ones.

2) Most likely, it will be gone after a while and BCCI would get a better deal than what they got previously. CA and ECB would feel the nationalistic fever of Indian population. 

3) Later if this becomes permanent, we'll get one of the most successful franchise leagues of the World - the IPL. That will be played in India for 4-6 months, final being on the Dewali day. 

4) In the overall tug-of-war, if cricket loses some popularity, there are other sports to fill up the void. Indian hockey and badminton talents are promising. Indian soccer league has an interesting niche. Sponsors will go to these in case cricket is in a turmoil. 

 

^ All of the above are better than subsidizing rich. 

[Zero_Unit]

Aside from that lower income, is there any other benefit we will loose? Honestly I don't really care about the political aspect of this bs. I watch cricket because I love the sport, and if india decided to back off CT I will be really pissed. Many of you are suggesting to back out, but deep down inside most of you you guys give zero F about the political/financial aspect from a fan perspective and only care about the players/matches just like I do. 

[horizonspeaks]

11 minutes ago, Zero_Unit said:

Aside from that lower income, is there any other benefit we will loose? Honestly I don't really care about the political aspect of this bs. I watch cricket because I love the sport, and if india decided to back off CT I will be really pissed. Many of you are suggesting to back out, but deep down inside most of you you guys give zero F about the political/financial aspect from a fan perspective and only care about the players/matches just like I do. 

IPL expansion plans will be killed in favor of loads of international fixtures.

[sandeep]

16 minutes ago, Stumped said:

There will be 15 board members at the table requiring a different amount of votes to pass/reject a proposal and voting will also be anonymous reducing the BCCIs ability to pay off other boards to vote in their favour.

I dont think more member representing teams hurts the BCCI much - issue is with the fake proxies that have been created - The "Administrator" and Women's cricket vote will clearly be controlled by the powers that install those representatives.  Some 'reform'.

 

Looking a bit further down the road - Member countries like Afghanistan and Nepal aren't going to be too difficult for the BCCI to woo and get in their favor.  If anything, this dilutes the votes of countries like WI and Zim.   Nepal is moving nicely up from the associate rungs - no reason why they can't follow in Afg footsteps.  

Edited April 26, 2017 by sandeep