BCCI Must Withdraw From ICC CT or Be Ready To Be Treated As A Slave Dog Of The White Boards

[Malcolm Merlyn]

The two white boards, CA and ECB are leading the charge to get back their power in ICC.These two white boards could never digest that a former colony and non white people were standing upto them and even surpassing them.They got an oppurtunity when SUpreme Court dismantled BCCI and Manohar joined ECB and CA.

 

Make no mistake if BCCI agrees to these terms they will become a bootlicker of these white boards like other boards are.We will be treated like dogs,kicked and handled with utter disdain.

 

This is a fight for survival with dignity.We are not a small,economically struggling country who have little significance around the world.We must fight for what is rightly ours.

[sandeep]

Calm down there Malcolm X.   

[Vilander]

bcci should not fight with dignity, they should fight like b@#$%^ds. Rip ICC apart, nuke their finances, every board that voted should have a cost to pay, how ever less it is. The only ones who should be awarded should be SL ( they wanted their money but voted against the governance changes which are more serious).

[Malcolm Merlyn]

24 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Calm down there Malcolm X.   

NJ you believe this is something other than  2 white boards trying to grab the power they lost?

 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

NJ you believe this is something other than  2 white boards trying to grab the power they lost?

 

Everybody's always going to try and grab the max they can.   Why did the West Indies board flip its vote?  40 million reasons why, not because they want to be "white".   Its all about the green, don't need to go all white black and lose your $hit.    

 

I'm not a big fan of Sambit Bal, but just read something he wrote about this back in February - very prescient and on point:  http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/1082858.html

 

Quote

Why isolating the BCCI is bad politics - SAMBIT BAL

The dismantling of the Big Three regime offered the opportunity to forge a collaboration for a new global order in cricket, but that has gone to waste

 
In the wake of the outrage against the Big Three takeover of the ICC in 2014, a sentence, or variations of it, came to be commonly used by the administrators of the ECB and Cricket Australia. Broadly, it went: "Better to have the BCCI in the tent, than having it pelt stones from outside." Apparently the BCCI was ready to walk out of the ICC if the revenue distribution model wasn't recast in its favour.

Three years later, it looks like the clock has been rewound: the BCCI has been left out of the tent, and prominent among those pushing the needle back are the ECB and CA, and they have been led by the ICC's first independent chairman, a prominent cricket administrator from India, who vacated the top job at the BCCI to take up the leadership of global cricket.

On the surface this appears to be a masterpiece in strategy and execution. The chief architect and guiding force behind the Big Three proposal, N Srinivasan, was removed long ago, and the BCCI leadership has since been flattened by the Supreme Court of India, leading to confusion and chaos. Many of the smaller national boards had been steamrolled into signing the earlier constitutional amendments, so with the ECB and CA on their side now, what better opportunity to isolate and corner the bully?

But is that really the case?

There is no doubt that the Big Three amendments needed to be overturned. The Asian nations had railed for years against the veto granted to the imperial powers (England and Australia), and yet the Indian cricket board joined forces with the ECB and CA to secure decisive control of the ICC. Much of the planning had been done in stealth, and more than the distribution model, which granted the BCCI over 20% of the ICC's revenues, and nifty hikes to the ECB and CA, it was the governance structure that really stank.

It mandated that the chairmanship of the ICC would rotate between the Big Three for the next three terms, and it gave permanent memberships to these three boards on the two most powerful committees of the ICC. At its most benevolent, the message to the rest of the boards was this: it's for your own good that we will rule you.

How could it possibly be wrong to pay the BCCI back in its own coin?

As ICC chairman, Manohar chose to exclude the BCCI from the committee formed to revise the financial model, while co-opting members of the ECB and the CA. Is any significant global trade negotiation conceivable without the US at the table?
Let's get the simple question of propriety out of the way first. Paying someone back in their own coin is the rule of the streets and of high schools. The ICC has forever been a beehive of intrigue and deal-making, but transparency and good governance have been buzzwords in recent months, and the secrecy behind the revamping of the revenue redistribution and the haste in trying to get it approved have smacked of the same kind of opportunism and scheming that was a feature of the Big Three heist. It is incredible that Giles Clarke, a leading light of the Big Three proposal as the ECB president at the time, and a vocal defender of it in subsequent months, should also be part of the working group tasked with its unmaking.

That aside, this bit of manoeuvring contains multiple thorns. For a start, it takes world cricket politics squarely back to the pre-2014 era, with the BCCI outside the tent, growling and waiting for its turn to strike. It is bad in principle to have a disgruntled member in a small society, but if that member turns out be the one holding the purse strings, you're asking for trouble.

Just as there is no exact science with which to determine which country contributes how much to the ICC's central revenue, there cannot be an exact formula for distribution of revenue. There seems to a consensus that the BCCI, cricket's largest economy by a distance, ought to receive the largest share.

What that share should be is a matter of perspective. There is a view, which I share, that the wealth should be shared more equitably so that nations disadvantaged by the size of their fan base or economic conditions are able to sustain a certain level in the game, since the global game isn't sustainable with only three or four major players.

The other view, which finds wide resonance in India, is that a 20% share for the BCCI is hardly unreasonable, given that it contributes nearly four times more to the global cricket economy than any other country, and it has to support an infrastructure many times the size of any other, given the geographical vastness and the population of the country.

It's an argument that can be settled only through negotiation.

There was indeed an opportunity for engagement. Under Manohar's brief presidency, the BCCI itself had agreed to a reduction of its share, with only one dissenting voice. But as ICC chairman, Manohar chose to exclude the BCCI from the committee formed to revise the financial model, while co-opting members of the ECB and the CA. Is any significant global trade negotiation conceivable without the US at the table?

And do the rest now expect the BCCI, or even the court-appointed committee of administrators, to simply accept a figure that has been arrived at in good faith? Of course, international cricket survives on inter-dependency, and the IPL could never have reached the heights it has without the participation of global stars, but just as Indian cricket cannot flourish in isolation, cricket's global revenues will simply collapse without India's participation.

Over the last couple of weeks I have spoken to several senior officials of the ICC's global broadcaster and there is unanimity over the assessment that the Indian market alone contributes nearly 70% of the value of the rights; if you include the various Indian diasporas, that figure is in the region of 80%. India's withdrawal from the Champions Trophy is unthinkable, and the consequences will be disastrous for all concerned, but the Members Participation Agreement, signed in 2014, does give them the right to do so, and the broadcast agreement does allow the broadcasters to pull out in such an eventuality.

The point is not whether this will happen; the question is about the soundness of the strategy to marginalise and isolate the game's largest stakeholder (it's a word cricket's administrators are increasingly fond of) from the decision-making process and paint it into such a corner that it will lay in wait for the opportunity to extract vengeance.

Already, there is nervousness among cricket boards over the matter of bilateral tours with India, the most reliable source of income for many boards, and by April, when the next ICC board meeting is due, it is likely that the voting equation will have altered.

The pity is that this was avoidable. There was the opportunity, and the environment, to forge a collaboration for a new global order in cricket. The BCCI has never been the most loved organisation either at home or abroad, but a transformation is under way. To launch a strike against it at a moment of weakness is, above everything else, bad politics.

 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

they wanted their money but voted against the governance changes which are more serious).

People are focusing on the dollar amounts which are attention-grabbing - but the governance changes basically build a platform where the ECB controlled ICC can dictate terms to the BCCI going forward in terms of its international commitments.   This to me, is a bigger issue than the thievery of shared revenue.

[surajmal]

If BCCI gets pressured into doing something against their will and interest by CoA, I think it is time to do a Babri on SC. I have had enough of these gungadeens. 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

43 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Everybody's always going to try and grab the max they can.   Why did the West Indies board flip its vote?  40 million reasons why, not because they want to be "white".   Its all about the green, don't need to go all white black and lose your $hit.    

 

I'm not a big fan of Sambit Bal, but just read something he wrote about this back in February - very prescient and on point:  http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/1082858.html

 

 

 

You are wrong if you believe that the slave mentality of white will do better and the money is changing the votes.The White Boards simply can digest that BCCI was better and more powerful.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

You are wrong if you believe that the slave mentality of white will do better and the money is changing the votes.The White Boards simply can digest that BCCI was better and more powerful.

Agree to disagree.  You can go all Malcolm X Ziad Hamid on the "goras" to your hearts content.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

9 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Agree to disagree.  You can go all Malcolm X Ziad Hamid on the "goras" to your hearts content.

Tell me the reason why CA and ECB are ever present with Manohar during all the meetings?

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Tell me the reason why CA and ECB are ever present with Manohar during all the meetings?

Dude, you know I agree with you on that already - the current ICC $hitshow is all Giles Clarke.  Manohar is just the frontman Mir jaffer.  

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

The BCCI seems to be fighting a losing battle at the ICC.For the first time in decades BCCI has lost votes at the ICC.If BCCI lose this battle, not only will they lose the finances,they will lose their power,dignity and any talk of IPL expansion will be history.The ICC will decide who we play and when and in how many games.India lose this battle we will be licking white boots forever and be treated with contempt.The likes of Smith or Anderson will literally walkover a Virat Kohli with disdain.Lets look who is squaring up for BCCI in this battle and who is leading the ICC charge.

 

 

Diana Edulji:  Unless you are a very keen and historical follower of Indian cricket with very deep knowledge of it you wont even know who this lady is.She is now running BCCI.She has no stature nothing.

 

Ramchandra Guha:  A historian.No background in cricket,corporate,politics or any kind of administrative job.His education is in History and Economics which he taught for many years in universities around the world.A typical nehruvian angelophilic.

Vikram Limaye:  The only person on the board who has any kind of corporate background.He is a banker and is good with his numbers.Remember even he has opposed the present revenue model and asked for the rational for such distribution. He said " no scientific basis behind the percentage distribution allocation that was being proposed other than good faith and equity.” But he is corporate light weight.

 

These are the people fighting for BCCI againist seasoned politicians/administrators/Corporate Honchos.Lets see who are the three main opponents of the BCCI.

 

Shashank Manohar: Former BCCI President.Ace Lawyer.The entire family is very prominent as lawyers and judges.They politically very connected. The Manohar family has ruled Vidarbha Cricket for 3 generations.VR Manohar father of Shashank Manohar was VCA President for years.He was followed by Shashank Manohar and now Shashank Manohar's son is VCA VP. Shashank Manohar's father was Advocate general of Maharashtra for years under Sharad Pawar.He was also personal lawyer for Pawar and Sanjay Dutt.It was VR Manohar who represented Bhajji at the hearing againist Symonds in 2008 and got him off. Shahshank Manohar's Brother was also Advocate general of Maharashtra and his sister a Judge of Mumbai HC.Manohar himself was initiated into cricket administration at a very yound age and mentored by the likes of his father and Sharad Pawar.Manohar himself is a ace lawyer.

 

David Peever: Chairman of CA. He is former MD of global giant Rio Tinto and led the group through various bruising corporate battles.

 

Giles Clarke:  The President of ECB.A serial enterpreneur and self made millionaire in Pounds.He is considered by to have changed the finances of ECB in 2004 through tv rights deals.He is described as ruthless and a bull in a china shop.After he stepped down from ECB Chairman a new post of ECB President was created for him to keep him as its head and ICC representative of ECB .Many consider him to be the Dalmiya of ECB

 

These people are also being supported by politicians and administrators of various countries who have years of experience in cricket administration.This is a losing battle we are fighting unless we get people to outwit,outmuscle and out think these people.We need a Machiavelli a chanakya a gamechanger a disruptor.Else we are losing this battle and be ready to kiss Indian cricket as we know it today.

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

You are wrong if you believe that the slave mentality of white will do better and the money is changing the votes.The White Boards simply can digest that BCCI was better and more powerful.

there is a bit of that underlying i have also sensed that fn brits/aussies can take the fact that brown people are more powerful than then in something, also a point to note is your defiance or bloodlust for them is good ( i like that very much)and it should be underlying with very flowery rose petal 'this is just a game' kinda language on top, that makes it even more palatable for more folks.

[Cricketics]

Sunny Ji aka Malcolm Merlyn aka OP needs to calm down. Crazy title "slave dogs of the white boards."

 

I know we need to win this battle from ICC but your mentality and language use is pathetic.

 

 

I am glad you are not part of BCCI management, because you do not win battles like this with such language and anger.

[Stuge]

Call isis and tell them to nuke icc office right now.. period 😂😂

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

1 hour ago, Cricketics said:

Sunny Ji aka Malcolm Merlyn aka OP needs to calm down. Crazy title "slave dogs of the white boards."

 

I know we need to win this battle from ICC but your mentality and language use is pathetic.

 

 

I am glad you are not part of BCCI management, because you do not win battles like this with such language and anger.

 

BCCI had been called worse names in ICC by then ACB and TCCB in 90s.

[Cricketics]

10 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

BCCI had been called worse names in ICC by then ACB and TCCB in 90s.

Who cares, doesn't mean we have to use this shyt language.

 

Move on, this won't take you anywhere. Do  or write something constructive as saying thing s like this won't make us win the battle with ICC.

[Cricketics]

We need to learn from our PM Modi or even a captain like Dhoni to stay calm and find solution and wint his battle, instead of losing temper and calling them slaves etc.

 

Thats just age old mindset Malcolm Merlyn showing.

[YCCC]

Don't have a clue what all this is about, and don't particularly care, but just came to say FTECB (work out for yourself what the first two letters stand for). They are power crazy in their at attempts to change the domestic game over here and throw away 150 years of tradition. They need to be brought down to earth.

 

Always find the contrast between English and Indian fans amusing in their contrasting views on the national cricket board. You lot back them like you would the players, most of us true fans over here support the players but can't stand the ECB tossers and their despotic regime!

Edited April 28, 2017 by YCCC

[Malcolm Merlyn]

17 minutes ago, YCCC said:

Don't have a clue what all this is about, and don't particularly care, but just came to say FTECB (work out for yourself what the first two letters stand for). They are power crazy in their at attempts to change the domestic game over here and throw away 150 years of tradition. They need to be brought down to earth.

 

Always find the contrast between English and Indian fans amusing in their contrasting views on the national cricket board. You lot back them like you would the players, most of us true fans over here support the players but can't stand the ECB tossers and their despotic regime!

 

Remove Giles Clarke.

 

BCCI has done a lot for the players.I dont know which board pays its FC cricketers pensions.