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

[Kriterion]

On 5/3/2017 at 9:21 AM, Ultimate_Game said:

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  

ECB and CA didnt have money back then. 

[Ultimate_Game]

7 minutes ago, Kriterion said:

ECB and CA didnt have money back then. 

They had much more than BCCI at the time.

[Kriterion]

On 5/3/2017 at 10:35 AM, Vilander said:

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.

How is India going to play bilateral cricket if they take 70% of the ICC revenue and the other 9 countries all collapse financially? If India doesn't play bilateral cricket they wont earn that revenue. And one the other 9 countries disappear, India will make exactly 0 from the ICC events. 

 

As far as Star goes, isn't that an Indian network? If Star backs out when India Boycott, the ICC can sell the broadcast rights to a different network. That network will sell ad time to non Indian companies marketing to non Indians. Of course it might generate less revenue, maybe even significantly. But the 9 nations would not need to give 20 or 30% to one nation. 

[Khota]

21 minutes ago, Kriterion said:

How is India going to play bilateral cricket if they take 70% of the ICC revenue and the other 9 countries all collapse financially? If India doesn't play bilateral cricket they wont earn that revenue. And one the other 9 countries disappear, India will make exactly 0 from the ICC events. 

 

As far as Star goes, isn't that an Indian network? If Star backs out when India Boycott, the ICC can sell the broadcast rights to a different network. That network will sell ad time to non Indian companies marketing to non Indians. Of course it might generate less revenue, maybe even significantly. But the 9 nations would not need to give 20 or 30% to one nation. 

India only needs to play bilaterals with the empire and Australia. Throw in SA here and there. As India has shown for years they dont need to play Pakistan. Throw in BD also.

 

The nine nations dont need to give 30% to India as there would be nothing to share.

 

Either we can argue or come up with a fair distribution model. What is going on is called theft.

[Vilander]

46 minutes ago, Kriterion said:

How is India going to play bilateral cricket if they take 70% of the ICC revenue and the other 9 countries all collapse financially? If India doesn't play bilateral cricket they wont earn that revenue. And one the other 9 countries disappear, India will make exactly 0 from the ICC events. 

 

As far as Star goes, isn't that an Indian network? If Star backs out when India Boycott, the ICC can sell the broadcast rights to a different network. That network will sell ad time to non Indian companies marketing to non Indians. Of course it might generate less revenue, maybe even significantly. But the 9 nations would not need to give 20 or 30% to one nation. 

where the * is india taking 70% of revenue do you even read my post ? India brings in 70-80% of the revenue. India is asking for 20.3% share, icc is suggesting 10% but willing to move up to 15.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Vilander

[Vilander]

and if star walks out the other nations will take a 70% cut in their 132 bil lol they will get 40 mil in stead basically.

[Tom]

Amitabh Choudary has a spine. He has sent a strongly worded letter to the CoA idiots.

[mishra]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

Amitabh Choudary has a spine. He has sent a strongly worded letter to the CoA idiots.

I think 20+ members off 27 has responded to him saying a no. 3 votes are with GoI.

But CoA is trying to put BCCI in a legal fix by not sending the letter to ICC. Howevere , as delay prolongs, Star is allready loosing money due to uncertainity

[Kriterion]

18 hours ago, Vilander said:

where the * is india taking 70% of revenue do you even read my post ? India brings in 70-80% of the revenue. India is asking for 20.3% share, icc is suggesting 10% but willing to move up to 15.

 

I'm asking you:

 

if India takes 70% because they allegedly "earn" 70%...then how will the other 9 boards surivive on 30%? When there is only 1 country left that can afford to play cricket (BCCI), how exactly will BCCI earn money from bilateral cricket? 

 

They will have to expand the IPL to a 6 month season with a 50-60 games per team. Is that economically viable? Top players will ask for 10 million dollars a year as salary, which is still less than EPL, NBA, NFL players. Will IPL owners be willing to pay players that much? Because then even the two bit scrubs players will then ask for 1-2 million per season. 

 

Maybe that will work, but then int'l cricket will be dead. But I guess thats what India wants, right? 

 

And thats aside from the logical conundrum that BCCI may be earning 70% of ICC's revenue, but the other 9 countries are earning 100% of the ICC's revenue. 

 

[Manny_Pacquiao]

9 minutes ago, Kriterion said:

I'm asking you:

 

if India takes 70% because they allegedly "earn" 70%...then how will the other 9 boards surivive on 30%? When there is only 1 country left that can afford to play cricket (BCCI), how exactly will BCCI earn money from bilateral cricket? 

 

They will have to expand the IPL to a 6 month season with a 50-60 games per team. Is that economically viable? Top players will ask for 10 million dollars a year as salary, which is still less than EPL, NBA, NFL players. Will IPL owners be willing to pay players that much? Because then even the two bit scrubs players will then ask for 1-2 million per season. 

 

Maybe that will work, but then int'l cricket will be dead. But I guess thats what India wants, right? 

 

And thats aside from the logical conundrum that BCCI may be earning 70% of ICC's revenue, but the other 9 countries are earning 100% of the ICC's revenue. 

 

 

Its not just about india.

 

pakistan, bangladesh, and sri lanka deserve a far bigger share of ICC revenues, and that share should come straight out of the goras' pockets. subcontinent teams are in the same position that india is in: still growing the game within their countries. A bigger IPL makes the game more lucrative for players all around the world, and it doesn't have to come the expense of international cricket.

 

BCCI needs to unify the subcontinent bloc. its difficult, but if that were to happen, the goras wouldn't be hijacking cricket with their bullshit agenda.

 

why does england, a country where cricket growth is maxed out, receive twice as much as bangladesh?

[Khota]

1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said:

 

Its not just about india.

 

pakistan, bangladesh, and sri lanka deserve a far bigger share of ICC revenues, and that share should come straight out of the goras' pockets. subcontinent teams are in the same position that india is in: still growing the game within their countries. A bigger IPL makes the game more lucrative for players all around the world, and it doesn't have to come the expense of international cricket.

 

BCCI needs to unify the subcontinent bloc. its difficult, but if that were to happen, the goras wouldn't be hijacking cricket with their bullshit agenda.

 

why does england, a country where cricket growth is maxed out, receive twice as much as bangladesh?

The days of India. Pak, BD together are gone. Indias future model should not include these countries. 

 

#1 country to play should be Aus, SA followed by empire.

[Khota]

1 hour ago, Kriterion said:

I'm asking you:

 

if India takes 70% because they allegedly "earn" 70%...then how will the other 9 boards surivive on 30%? When there is only 1 country left that can afford to play cricket (BCCI), how exactly will BCCI earn money from bilateral cricket? 

 

They will have to expand the IPL to a 6 month season with a 50-60 games per team. Is that economically viable? Top players will ask for 10 million dollars a year as salary, which is still less than EPL, NBA, NFL players. Will IPL owners be willing to pay players that much? Because then even the two bit scrubs players will then ask for 1-2 million per season. 

 

Maybe that will work, but then int'l cricket will be dead. But I guess thats what India wants, right? 

 

And thats aside from the logical conundrum that BCCI may be earning 70% of ICC's revenue, but the other 9 countries are earning 100% of the ICC's revenue. 

 

Why should India take less. India is already giving quiet a bit more.

 

Top players wont be paid that much but 6 months IPL is coming in a decade if other boards keep on cheating India.

 

India does not want International cricket dead. No country has done more for cricket than India.

[Ultimate_Game]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

The days of India. Pak, BD together are gone. Indias future model should not include these countries. 

 

#1 country to play should be Aus, SA followed by empire.

At the end of the day only you have your back - nobody else. Rest everyone will scram leaving you in the lurch. As the saying goes "No good deed goes unpunished." BCCI have backed B'desh, WI, Zim etc. so many times in the past and look where it got them. Aasteen ke saanp sab ke sab.

[Khota]

On 5/2/2017 at 10:47 PM, Kriterion said:

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?

 

 

If socialism works for you then I am very happy for you.

 

The current system is beyond socialism. It is robbery.

[Vilander]

4 hours ago, Kriterion said:

I'm asking you:

 

if India takes 70% because they allegedly "earn" 70%...then how will the other 9 boards surivive on 30%? When there is only 1 country left that can afford to play cricket (BCCI), how exactly will BCCI earn money from bilateral cricket? 

 

They will have to expand the IPL to a 6 month season with a 50-60 games per team. Is that economically viable? Top players will ask for 10 million dollars a year as salary, which is still less than EPL, NBA, NFL players. Will IPL owners be willing to pay players that much? Because then even the two bit scrubs players will then ask for 1-2 million per season. 

 

Maybe that will work, but then int'l cricket will be dead. But I guess thats what India wants, right? 

 

And thats aside from the logical conundrum that BCCI may be earning 70% of ICC's revenue, but the other 9 countries are earning 100% of the ICC's revenue. 

 

are you really that thick ? india is asking for 20.3 % everything else you built on is wrong as a result

[Khota]

3 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

At the end of the day only you have your back - nobody else. Rest everyone will scram leaving you in the lurch. As the saying goes "No good deed goes unpunished." BCCI have backed B'desh, WI, Zim etc. so many times in the past and look where it got them. Aasteen ke saanp sab ke sab.

So true.

[Ultimate_Game]

18 hours ago, sarchasm said:

I understand that a lot of posters here think that BCCI's efforts to nurture Zimboks and Bangers etc have failed to deliver.

 

Not true.

 

India used these boards to keep England and Australia in check for well over two decades now. And these boards would come around again.

The point is that when we held the stick all the boards which we helped towed the line but the moment BCCI fell on hard times due to SC conflict, everyone turned on BCCI. Not even one stood up with BCCI in time of its need. And of course I do expect the other boards to "come around" when BCCI gets its house in order and weilds the stick again. But is that really being an ally and a friend? I don't think so and that's what BCCI needs to keep in mind, i.e. it can't rely on any other board.

[mishra]

^ There are sides. You take side depending upon ur interests. I remember Gavaskar mentioning once that when it came to voting to host world cup , he was surprised to see how all white boards ganged up together. Since then things have changed. BCCI has gone against of PCB. Also this was a vote by mon whites to take money off BCCI while for whites it long game i.e. to weaken BCCI.

Point is Its ICC which has decided

to kill its golden goose. I wint be surprised if ICC greed kills the goose

 

[Manny_Pacquiao]

impossible to do anything at such short notice. send the team, take the loss and then appoint some new administrators.

 

 

[Khota]

Need to take legal action in parallel. This is a betrayl of trust on part of empire.