Why BCCI Is Likely To Lose The Battle Againist ICC......

[beetle]

Bcci should take this issue to the sc. The COA members are working against the interest of Indian cricket.This assand that vinod rai.....bloody aasteen ke saanp.

Why are they even involved in this.?They were responsible for reforms in bcci ...not sell Indian cricket .$@#&$#@#

[profster]

We are likely to lose because people like him are running BCCI

 

https://twitter.com/Ram_Guha/status/858554763230793728

 

 

Guha needs to make good in the Hate-India & Love-English cocktail party circuit. What a tool! [emoji35]

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

I told you what Guha is in the op.

[New guy]

3 hours ago, beetle said:

Bcci should take this issue to the sc. The COA members are working against the interest of Indian cricket.This assand that vinod rai.....bloody aasteen ke saanp.

Why are they even involved in this.?They were responsible for reforms in bcci ...not sell Indian cricket .$@#&$#@#

Why can't Indians give him feedback on twitter?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

7 minutes ago, New guy said:

Why can't Indians give him feedback on twitter?

 

Guha is receiving enough feedback.

[jalebi_bhai]

 

^^ This Anglophile Durbaari has been defending BCCIs case.

Vinod Rai is fairly credible, being a former CAG. But he isn't belligerent enough, by himself, to deal with rogues like Manohar and Giles. 

[Kriterion]

17 hours ago, Vilander said:

what an ignorant rant of a post. Waste of space.

 

who the * is the extortionist ? India brings in 2 bil of the 2.5 bil revenue for the period. 20.3% profit is a big charity from BCCI and India.

 

lol that gave you away...haha

 

if that happens then BCCI cedes thats when it happens.

 

 

 

 

Where is the proof the BCCI brings in 70% of the ICC's revenue? If its such a fact, why didn't the Srinivasan led movement provide the calculations for the 2014 contribution factor calculations during the Big 3 takeover?

 

There is a logical reason why the BCCI cannot bring in 70% of the revenue:

 

1) Where does that money even come from? The ICC broadcast rights. But those broadcasters only pay that much cash because of the commercial advertising slots they sell to various companies (ie sponsors). Now because India makes up 75% of cricket's viewers it makes sense to ensure that the majority of these sponsors are Indian companies. Thats where the 70% money comes from. 

 

But is that a fair business model? 

 

It appears as though British and Australia companies are disproportionately underrepresented as sponsors for ICC events. If they get equal access to bid for ICC events, the Indian sponsors' shares may come down to 50%, and then we would see that BCCI would only be responsible for generating 50% of the revenue. 

 

2) The second issue is that while the ICC earns less profits without India, Indian earns nothing without the ICC. Even the IPL is dependent on star players from AUS, ENG, SA, WI without which the mass appeal of the IPL is greatly reduced. 

 

Both BCCI and ICC need each other and a compromise is what needs to happen. If the BCCI takes 70% of the revenue proportional to their contribution, it will kill its own goose. The other 9 boards would collapse, international cricket would cease, and then the BCCI would collapse. 

 

Its called an integrated economy. The US may have the world's largest GDP, but if every other nation collapsed, the US would too because it relies on trade with other countries. 

 

Like it or not, some degree of socialism and spreading the wealth is in everyone's best interest. 

 

Unrestrained greed is not. 

[Vilander]

5 hours ago, Kriterion said:

Where is the proof the BCCI brings in 70% of the ICC's revenue? If its such a fact, why didn't the Srinivasan led movement provide the calculations for the 2014 contribution factor calculations during the Big 3 takeover?

 

There is a logical reason why the BCCI cannot bring in 70% of the revenue:

 

1) Where does that money even come from? The ICC broadcast rights. But those broadcasters only pay that much cash because of the commercial advertising slots they sell to various companies (ie sponsors). Now because India makes up 75% of cricket's viewers it makes sense to ensure that the majority of these sponsors are Indian companies. Thats where the 70% money comes from. 

 

But is that a fair business model? 

 

It appears as though British and Australia companies are disproportionately underrepresented as sponsors for ICC events. If they get equal access to bid for ICC events, the Indian sponsors' shares may come down to 50%, and then we would see that BCCI would only be responsible for generating 50% of the revenue. 

 

2) The second issue is that while the ICC earns less profits without India, Indian earns nothing without the ICC. Even the IPL is dependent on star players from AUS, ENG, SA, WI without which the mass appeal of the IPL is greatly reduced. 

 

Both BCCI and ICC need each other and a compromise is what needs to happen. If the BCCI takes 70% of the revenue proportional to their contribution, it will kill its own goose. The other 9 boards would collapse, international cricket would cease, and then the BCCI would collapse. 

 

Its called an integrated economy. The US may have the world's largest GDP, but if every other nation collapsed, the US would too because it relies on trade with other countries. 

 

Like it or not, some degree of socialism and spreading the wealth is in everyone's best interest. 

 

Unrestrained greed is not. 

Sorry proof is your burden, india pulls 80% of the revenue we all know that, funny thing is you seem to think it's pulls less than 20 why is tv.rights for Indian games 4  times the value of English  ones then  and greed is what ICC is showing trying to have fin committee with out it's biggest benefactor. If India pulls more than 20.3 pc of ICC revenues then it is giving more revenue than receiving a profit share of. ICC will pay for this and it will be ugly. Bcci is in a free market and with the right cash every player will be an agent it is the beauty of capitalism and free Enterprise. Socialism is a failed concept. Every board except India gets far more share than it's contribution and you have the nerve to call India greedy there is a special word.for folks.like you ends with a bag.

[Straight Drive]

Once the SC got involved there were enough flaws in BCCI operations to be exposed and it was evident that BCCI will suffer.

 

Now knowing that BCCI is very weak, other boards too have courageously voted against BCCI sensing that this is the best time to get more revenue by shrinking revenues for BCCI.

 

Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Thats what is happening to BCCI. 

[Kriterion]

On 4/30/2017 at 10:52 PM, Vilander said:

Sorry proof is your burden, india pulls 80% of the revenue we all know that, funny thing is you seem to think it's pulls less than 20 why is tv.rights for Indian games 4  times the value of English  ones then  and greed is what ICC is showing trying to have fin committee with out it's biggest benefactor. If India pulls more than 20.3 pc of ICC revenues then it is giving more revenue than receiving a profit share of. ICC will pay for this and it will be ugly. Bcci is in a free market and with the right cash every player will be an agent it is the beauty of capitalism and free Enterprise. Socialism is a failed concept. Every board except India gets far more share than it's contribution and you have the nerve to call India greedy there is a special word.for folks.like you ends with a bag.

 

Socialism isn't a failed concept...its the moral concept. Plenty of countries have socialism and are better off for it. When was the last time the Danes had any major issues?

 

 

[Kriterion]

On 4/30/2017 at 10:52 PM, Vilander said:

Sorry proof is your burden, india pulls 80% of the revenue we all know that, funny thing is you seem to think it's pulls less than 20 why is tv.rights for Indian games 4  times the value of English  ones then  and greed is what ICC is showing trying to have fin committee with out it's biggest benefactor. If India pulls more than 20.3 pc of ICC revenues then it is giving more revenue than receiving a profit share of. ICC will pay for this and it will be ugly. Bcci is in a free market and with the right cash every player will be an agent it is the beauty of capitalism and free Enterprise. Socialism is a failed concept. Every board except India gets far more share than it's contribution and you have the nerve to call India greedy there is a special word.for folks.like you ends with a bag.

 

 

Burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim actually. So BCCI's claim of 80% would need to proven, which I don't think they in 2014. If they had, the BCCI wouldn't be debating boycotting the Champions Trophy. They have told Manohar and the ICC, "here are the reciepts and balance sheets that show us bringing in this amount of money and thats the amount we're asking for". The BCCI has the proof...well, what are they waiting for before using it?

 

Lets assume that figure is true. That BCCI brings in the overwhelming majority of ICC revenue. Lets assume its fair for the BCCI to take that revenue back. So if the ICC only has 20% left for the other 104 member nations + their own operating expense...all of the other nations will collapse financially. Once that happens there won't be any international cricket for the BCCI to play. No world cups, no champions trophy no nothing. You will murder your own goose. 

 

The BCCI will then have to rely on expanding the IPL as their sole source of income. One thing is for sure, none of the other FM countries will just let their players play in the league of a country that destroyed their cricket. So what will happen is the IPL will have to give multi-million dollar contracts to pretty much every foreign player. I'm talking about 10, 15, 20 million dollars per year. Can the IPL afford that? Maybe they can. And you will that much money to buy the nationalities of those players. The question is then, is the IPL a league that can stand alone as a 6 month league like the NBA, NFL, or NHL? 

 

[New guy]

6 minutes ago, Kriterion said:

 

Burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim actually. So BCCI's claim of 80% would need to proven, which I don't think they in 2014. If they had, the BCCI wouldn't be debating boycotting the Champions Trophy. They have told Manohar and the ICC, "here are the reciepts and balance sheets that show us bringing in this amount of money and thats the amount we're asking for". The BCCI has the proof...well, what are they waiting for before using it?

 

Lets assume that figure is true. That BCCI brings in the overwhelming majority of ICC revenue. Lets assume its fair for the BCCI to take that revenue back. So if the ICC only has 20% left for the other 104 member nations + their own operating expense...all of the other nations will collapse financially. Once that happens there won't be any international cricket for the BCCI to play. No world cups, no champions trophy no nothing. You will murder your own goose. 

 

The BCCI will then have to rely on expanding the IPL as their sole source of income. One thing is for sure, none of the other FM countries will just let their players play in the league of a country that destroyed their cricket. So what will happen is the IPL will have to give multi-million dollar contracts to pretty much every foreign player. I'm talking about 10, 15, 20 million dollars per year. Can the IPL afford that? Maybe they can. And you will that much money to buy the nationalities of those players. The question is then, is the IPL a league that can stand alone as a 6 month league like the NBA, NFL, or NHL? 

 

1) The revenue BCCI brings has never been in dispute and ICC knows that so I dunno where you are going with the proof thing. This proof thing is the whining of some Pak fans, ICC and all other boards knows how much BCCI contributes, that part has never been under dispute, they just want the revenue distribution to be more socialist

 

2) What you wrote about BCCI cricket surviving goes both ways. You are assuming other boards, particularly the lesser ones, will just stand by and see their cricket being destroyed and not come running back to BCCI but will spite them further. Money speaks. Its a question of who blinks first and BCCI has the money to hold out a bit longer than lots of other boards

[Lannister]

We need a change at the administrative level. We need some young brains who are of this generation. The old farts right now are of the mindset of pre-colonial era. They just don't know how to face challenges and mostly, look clueless. 

[mishra]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/m.timesofindia.com/sports/cricket/news/bcci-ropes-in-uk-law-firm-ready-with-notice-for-icc/amp_articleshow/58488958.cms

So lawyer are in. Lawyer better than Manohar

[Kriterion]

2 hours ago, New guy said:

1) The revenue BCCI brings has never been in dispute and ICC knows that so I dunno where you are going with the proof thing. This proof thing is the whining of some Pak fans, ICC and all other boards knows how much BCCI contributes, that part has never been under dispute, they just want the revenue distribution to be more socialist

 

2) What you wrote about BCCI cricket surviving goes both ways. You are assuming other boards, particularly the lesser ones, will just stand by and see their cricket being destroyed and not come running back to BCCI but will spite them further. Money speaks. Its a question of who blinks first and BCCI has the money to hold out a bit longer than lots of other boards

 

Never being in dispute and having evidence are two different things. Me having written all of Michael Jackson's songs has never been in dispute either. But I also don't have any evidence of it. 

 

But lets say it is true, for arguments sake. 

 

The only possible reason for that larger revenue would be India's large population. Neither the players nor the BCCI is directly responsible for India's population, ergo they haven't earned the revenue the generate. Its like Saudi Arabia claiming to own the petrol industry just because they happen to have the largest amount under their soil.

 

Its not any credit to BCCI. They didn't create the land, labor, or capital that is the source of this alleged revenue. 

 

 

[New guy]

42 minutes ago, Kriterion said:

Never being in dispute and having evidence are two different things. Me having written all of Michael Jackson's songs has never been in dispute either. But I also don't have any evidence of it. 

 

But lets say it is true, for arguments sake. 

 

The only possible reason for that larger revenue would be India's large population. Neither the players nor the BCCI is directly responsible for India's population, ergo they haven't earned the revenue the generate. Its like Saudi Arabia claiming to own the petrol industry just because they happen to have the largest amount under their soil.

 

Its not any credit to BCCI. They didn't create the land, labor, or capital that is the source of this alleged revenue. 

 

 

This is brilliant logic. Every rich man's son should distribute the money they inherit because they did not earn it

[Ultimate_Game]

7 hours ago, Kriterion said:

Never being in dispute and having evidence are two different things. Me having written all of Michael Jackson's songs has never been in dispute either. But I also don't have any evidence of it. 

 

But lets say it is true, for arguments sake. 

 

The only possible reason for that larger revenue would be India's large population. Neither the players nor the BCCI is directly responsible for India's population, ergo they haven't earned the revenue the generate. Its like Saudi Arabia claiming to own the petrol industry just because they happen to have the largest amount under their soil.

 

Its not any credit to BCCI. They didn't create the land, labor, or capital that is the source of this alleged revenue. 

 

 

What sort of lahori logic is that???   Who else should benefit from Indian market if not BCCI, which is the official body to represent India in matters related to cricket?

 

I didn't see any charity coming India's way from Eng (MCC & ECB) or Aus (ACB and now CA) back in the day when Indian middle class and economy had yet to take off. That time I didn't hear any theory on socialist lines of sharing revenue just because ECB and CA/ACB were making money owing to Eng & Aus economy.

 

Seriously this logic/argument is so flawed I initially took it to be a joke  

[Vilander]

11 hours ago, Kriterion said:

 

Burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim actually. So BCCI's claim of 80% would need to proven, which I don't think they in 2014. If they had, the BCCI wouldn't be debating boycotting the Champions Trophy. They have told Manohar and the ICC, "here are the reciepts and balance sheets that show us bringing in this amount of money and thats the amount we're asking for". The BCCI has the proof...well, what are they waiting for before using it?

 

Lets assume that figure is true. That BCCI brings in the overwhelming majority of ICC revenue. Lets assume its fair for the BCCI to take that revenue back. So if the ICC only has 20% left for the other 104 member nations + their own operating expense...all of the other nations will collapse financially. Once that happens there won't be any international cricket for the BCCI to play. No world cups, no champions trophy no nothing. You will murder your own goose. 

 

The BCCI will then have to rely on expanding the IPL as their sole source of income. One thing is for sure, none of the other FM countries will just let their players play in the league of a country that destroyed their cricket. So what will happen is the IPL will have to give multi-million dollar contracts to pretty much every foreign player. I'm talking about 10, 15, 20 million dollars per year. Can the IPL afford that? Maybe they can. And you will that much money to buy the nationalities of those players. The question is then, is the IPL a league that can stand alone as a 6 month league like the NBA, NFL, or NHL? 

 

sorry i did not realise you are from Pakistan,now i am not a person who has learnt law formally but a common Indian man, but let me clarify its a matter of legality, there are many lawyers in ICF they could give you more insights. Its not that easy, only if ICC is initially presumed to be correct and even then  BCCI just needs to be able to produce least enough evidence to proceed on a dispute(this is done), once this is done the burden shifts to the other side :), its a beautiful principle of natural justice.

We are there now, BCCI has revenues in public domain, Star is on record that they will reduce the cost if India pulls out of the ICC events, there is a clause in ICC telecast rights agreement which links the agreed deal amount to India's participation. Now whether COA and SC lets BCCI exploit this is an other matter, but the underlying dynamic is this,ICC wants India not to take 20.3 but 15 % and agrees to 18% as a carrot just on Manohars whim, whilst India pulls 70-80% of the revenue. Manohar also thinks it ok if he threatens India that the 100 mill offer will go off the table if they dont act, as if there is a need to finalise this now, there is no urgency here its for 2023. Is this fair ? clearly its a con going on there, and India will call their bluff.

India is not asking for 70% or 35% which should be legally its share even if you consider the lopsided other participating country claiming the money from Indian cricket fans pocket argument, its asking for 20.3% anyway, which provides the benefit of other participants share and then some for associates the 35-20.3. 

Now to what you alluded, icc is the one killing its golden goose. India just needs to make the 18% 393 mill and what ever 400-600 mil bi-laterals value it makes to to walk out of ICC, it does not have to make the 2 billion it makes as it anyway does not get the benefit. Atleast Indian sport viewing publics money will go to other well deserving Indian sports. India is a poor country and needs all the money it can get for its own population sorry.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Vilander

[Vilander]

9 hours ago, Kriterion said:

Never being in dispute and having evidence are two different things. Me having written all of Michael Jackson's songs has never been in dispute either. But I also don't have any evidence of it. 

 

But lets say it is true, for arguments sake. 

 

The only possible reason for that larger revenue would be India's large population. Neither the players nor the BCCI is directly responsible for India's population, ergo they haven't earned the revenue the generate. Its like Saudi Arabia claiming to own the petrol industry just because they happen to have the largest amount under their soil.

 

Its not any credit to BCCI. They didn't create the land, labor, or capital that is the source of this alleged revenue. 

 

 

sorry i have detailed out in my earlier post.

 

burden of proof is on ICC, because BCCI has raised the evidence enough for a dispute. There is a icc telecst rights contract that has an Indian particpation clause to it, so ICC has to prove that BCCI pullls in only enough revenue to warrant 15 or 18% of revenue share and not the 20.3% that it is asking. Whether Indian market pulls in 70 or 80% is immaterial here.

[Vilander]

9 hours ago, Kriterion said:

Never being in dispute and having evidence are two different things. Me having written all of Michael Jackson's songs has never been in dispute either. But I also don't have any evidence of it. 

 

But lets say it is true, for arguments sake. 

 

The only possible reason for that larger revenue would be India's large population. Neither the players nor the BCCI is directly responsible for India's population, ergo they haven't earned the revenue the generate. Its like Saudi Arabia claiming to own the petrol industry just because they happen to have the largest amount under their soil.

 

Its not any credit to BCCI. They didn't create the land, labor, or capital that is the source of this alleged revenue.