Mark Richardson not happy with IPL pinching players

[yoda]

So BRC and CSK and MI are supposed to play without their mult-million dollar top players? Seems unfair to them, isn't it? Yes it is unfair to someone, whoever doesn't get these players to play for them. IPL has more teams and it's franchises have the first right of refusal for obvious reasons: 1. There is no CL without IPL 2. IPL has the money to compensate, other teams don't Mark Richardson is unhappy cause he like many around the world can't stand the success of the IPL or that a country like India has so much clout instead of being subservient. I say :finger:

[IKnowU]

:dito:

[Bumper]

why are you so stupid and thick? he is only obligated to play for IPL. there is no reason, a player shud only play for ipl outside the IPL. why does ipl require special consideration than his domestic team?

Spare me your rubbish, will you! If you are so dumb that you do not understand why IPL (which is the biggest $$$ making league in cricket, run by the most powerful cricket board in the world) demands special consideration, then you wont see anything i explain here. The rich and the powerful always get special privileges. Thats how the world works. And this is the common sense that is missing in your post.

he is also paid by and employed with other teams like central districts.he is also as obligated to them and if not more obligated to CD since its his native team. if he chooses not to play for RCB in cl, he won't be paid.its that simple. IPL takes unfair advantage by invoking the "first chocie to players" clause. you are making a fool out of yourself. it works the other way as well-I'll play for home team when it suits me and IPLat other times"

Duh! Here you are mixing loyalty and money. The card that Richardson is playing to advocate Taylor's representation for CD is "loyalty". You got that ? Its not about CD paying Taylor. Infact if it simply comes down to CD being unfairly denied Taylor because it had paid him, you dont have a point, as IPL pays its players 10 times more. Even if you are talking contractual obligation, this discussion is a non-starter, as CL rules are all laid out well in advance and all parties have signed. No one arm twisted CD to enter the Champions league in the first place. In that sense, you are one to be making a fool out of yourself. And you cant play 3 games for one team, 3 games for another. Thats a ludicrous argument. It does not make sense for franchises to sign players like that for millions of dollars. Since comprehension seems to be a serious issue for you, here it is once again for your edification. 1) IPL trumps other leagues in terms of contactual obligations 2) IPL trumps other leagues in terms of money The only reason players might consider playing for other teams might be loyalty related to their origins. And that is where my dosage of "common sense" has eluded you.

and how is it good for central districts? that's what richardson is asking.

Its good for CD because they get 200K richer (which may be their entire payroll). Put another way, what leverage does CD have in this process ? As it stands, its a privilege for a team like CD to participate in the CL & have a chance to make real money. If you have an opportunity to get paid handsomely for a tamasha tournament you better shut up & put up. Have you even considered the possibility that had CD been denied entry into the league, this debate would not even make sense ? CL is a business made out of sport. Its run by businessmen. Where is the question of fairness or unfairness ? If CD wants more leverage let it pay more for Ross Taylor & other players, so it can permanently take Taylor away from RCB.

its their problem. its pretty fair that players choose the side they are most professionally loyal to. but BCCI has prevented it.

I dont know what is fair about a player taking all the money from one team and playing for its competitor. And it makes no sense to say, you play three games here, three there & get paid by both franchises. Thats a crooked sense of fairness even by your standards. You gotta keep perspective of what CL is. I dont reckon you do. CL is a tamasha league run for money. Not a worldcup.

[mastana]

Yeh thats nice, spot a kid when he is about 10, spend **** loads of money developing him, watch him turn into a world class player but now he isnt allowed to play for you, he has to play for some made up club! Sounds fair.

This is coming from an Engerland fan. :hehe: Kevin Pietersen, Jonathan Trott, E. Morgan and the list goes on and on......

[mastana]

IMO players should stick to one team only. Look at Pollard he is playing for 4-5 domestic teams lol. Every team whether its an IPL team or a club from Engerland should include a clause that players can only play for them if their team makes it into the CL otherwise they should just watch the CL at home. It should be upto players to decide which team(only one) they want to play for in CL.

[Deleted_User_1]

This is coming from an Engerland fan. :hehe: Kevin Pietersen, Jonathan Trott, E. Morgan and the list goes on and on......

I tell you, this Serani is a piece of work, isn't he??? :hysterical::hysterical:

[yoda]

mastana pwns serani :hehe:

[Steyn]

Mastana is a typical ICFer. Personal attack on Serani after losing an argument.

[Sachinism]

Like the teams would like to sell out their chance at the big prize whatever it may be for $200,000 :haha:

[mastana]

Mastana is a typical ICFer. Personal attack on Serani after losing an argument.

Personal attack? Losing an argument? What are you smoking? 502 Pataka Beedi or Kisaan Beedi? :hehe:

[achilles]

Hey Mark, if the CL pinches you so much, why don't you return the cheque the "parasites" from the BCCI send you. I'm sure their cheque of $1million (for participation) means zilch to you.

[achilles]

I don't think that's true for the first signees. Don't think Champions League was a possibility or at least a realistic notion by the time the first auctions happened. I don't see how that's relevant. IPL teams are not forced to play 4 foreign players. They can play all Indian players if they want. Domestic teams usually have a restriction of 1-2 foreign players though. From what I've read, players don't have a choice. IPL teams get the first bite. http://www.cricinfo.com/t20champions2010/content/story/472536.html

With all due respect to the players, its not as if they didn't know what they were signing for, this time round. None of us know the intricacies of the contracts. But if this is a new clause added to an existing contract or a new contract drafted, the player would have obviously been consulted and his consent been taken. If he had any concerns, he simply had to say, "I DON'T ACCEPT THIS. I WON'T SIGN". He could jolly well move back to play for his domestic team. They DIDN'T. So Mark has really NOTHING to stand on here. Illicit rants, that too displaced, don't help. He's making himself more enemies than friends.

[achilles]

So BRC and CSK and MI are supposed to play without their mult-million dollar top players? Seems unfair to them, isn't it? Yes it is unfair to someone, whoever doesn't get these players to play for them. IPL has more teams and it's franchises have the first right of refusal for obvious reasons: 1. There is no CL without IPL 2. IPL has the money to compensate, other teams don't Mark Richardson is unhappy cause he like many around the world can't stand the success of the IPL or that a country like India has so much clout instead of being subservient. I say :finger:

It would've helped if Mark was just as brazen and honest and "loyal" and what not, when Cricket Australia robbed them off the ICC CEO spot by pushing through their candidate, who was half as deserving as NZ's candidate. But then it was fine, coz it was Australia, not India. Slagging off India seems to be the favourite pastime of people these days.

I dont know how the contract is. But i remember that CSK and DD were paid 5 million $ each because they knew about CL when they bid for the IPL franchise. Maybe my memory is not true here.

BCCI compensated them and RR $5mil each due to the "loss on investment" these teams suffered after the CL was called off. No other board in the world and no other team in the league did the same with their participants, which did make the other teams a bit upset with their boards.

[Serani]

This is coming from an Engerland fan. :hehe: Kevin Pietersen, Jonathan Trott, E. Morgan and the list goes on and on......

Erm...In think you will find that these players all developed in England, KP came over to play in the Birmingham and District Premier League [my local league] at 18 for Cannock and from that managed to get a county contract after being outcast by his South African side, Trott was another one who came to Birmingham after he realised he wouldnt get far in the racist quota system of SA. And Morgan has been at Middlesex since he was a child! People are just so ignorant. Hating on England because people want to come and live in our country, wouldnt get too many people wanting to move to a third world country like India.

[The Outsider]

With all due respect to the players, its not as if they didn't know what they were signing for, this time round. None of us know the intricacies of the contracts. But if this is a new clause added to an existing contract or a new contract drafted, the player would have obviously been consulted and his consent been taken. If he had any concerns, he simply had to say, "I DON'T ACCEPT THIS. I WON'T SIGN". He could jolly well move back to play for his domestic team. They DIDN'T. So Mark has really NOTHING to stand on here. Illicit rants, that too displaced, don't help. He's making himself more enemies than friends.

Way to miss the point as so many others have done before you. To reiterate - I know the basic gist of the contracts as well as any one of you here who have not seen the actual document and I also know that the players would be aware as to what they are signing in one way or the other. Don't know why you guys keep repeating the same crap. Point is this, for the final time - is the contract fair? Do players have adequate choice and alternatives? People are so quick to bring forth corporate analogies. Do you realize that if I don't like some contract terms of Google, there are hazaar other companies waiting out there because it's a free market? Here is the bottom line - even if IPL had made the players sign a contract that when they play a Champions League match against the IPL sides their team will start off at 0/3 if batting and 30/0 in 0 overs if bowling, players would have still signed the contract, because quite simply the money to be made in IPL does not compare to any other league in cricket. But knowing some IPL bootlickers on this forum they would even lap up those kind of rubbish clauses saying 'it's the contract, it's the contract, yippeee, players were aware of it when they signed'. For the umpteenth time, what's under discussion is not whether this is part of the contract or whether the players were aware when they signed up for it, but whether it is fair? And it should be obvious to anyone who wants to think this through without getting all jingoistic about IPL, that it is a clause blatantly making use of the monopolistic hold that IPL franchises have. If you want to call such whoring cricket, that's entirely your choice.

[yoda]

http://www.cricinfo.com/t20champions2010/content/story/471839.html For those who haven't read it.

Since the event features franchise-based clubs unconstrained by national boundaries, there are instances of a player having to choose between two or more sides. Ross Taylor of New Zealand had to choose between Royal Challengers Bangalore, Victoria and his home side Central Districts for the 2010 event. There are a number of other players who are eligible to play for two teams: Jacques Kallis (Warriors, Bangalore), Mark Boucher (Warriors, Bangalore), Makhaya Ntini (Warriors, Chennai), Kieron Pollard (South Australia, Mumbai), Dwayne Bravo (Victoria, Mumbai) and Cameron White (Victoria, Bangalore). If a player chooses to play for an 'away' team rather than his 'home' team in 2010 (the team from the country he is eligible to represent in international cricket), the 'away' team must pay $200,000 compensation to the 'home' team. No compensation is payable to an 'away' team if a player chooses to play for his 'home' team.

Theoretically if an Indian IPL player were to play in the CA league or SA league and he wants to play for them, the CA/SA team would need to compensate the Indian IPL team. Same for a windies player who wants to play for a CA team if applicable. Not sure if any of these combos are possible, but the rules aren't made just for IPL. Seems fair to me. Not sure what the biatching is all about. Also, forget about player contracts, participating CL teams have obviously accepted these terms, mainly because everyone gains with this league, except the purists who don't matter anyways as far as T20 is concerned (and ofc the haters like Mark Richardson).

[achilles]

Way to miss the point as so many others have done before you. To reiterate - I know the basic gist of the contracts as well as any one of you here who have not seen the actual document and I also know that the players would be aware as to what they are signing in one way or the other. Don't know why you guys keep repeating the same crap. Point is this, for the final time - is the contract fair? Do players have adequate choice and alternatives? People are so quick to bring forth corporate analogies. Do you realize that if I don't like some contract terms of Google, there are hazaar other companies waiting out there because it's a free market? Here is the bottom line - even if IPL had made the players sign a contract that when they play a Champions League match against the IPL sides their team will start off at 0/3 if batting and 30/0 in 0 overs if bowling, players would have still signed the contract, because quite simply the money to be made in IPL does not compare to any other league in cricket. But knowing some IPL bootlickers on this forum they would even lap up those kind of rubbish clauses saying 'it's the contract, it's the contract, yippeee, players were aware of it when they signed'. For the umpteenth time, what's under discussion is not whether this is part of the contract or whether the players were aware when they signed up for it, but whether it is fair? And it should be obvious to anyone who wants to think this through without getting all jingoistic about IPL, that it is a clause blatantly making use of the monopolistic hold that IPL franchises have. If you want to call such whoring cricket, that's entirely your choice.

The choice has already been made by the players and they have already decided what is fair to them and what is not. We are but bystanders in this situation. Life is about making sacrifices and the players have made theirs. For them, securing their future is a better option than playing for their domestic team with loyalty in mind. If given a choice, will you forgo HALF A MILLION $$s and settle for something less? Most people would got for Half a Mil.

[Jersey #10]

who cares

[Don Sharma]

Even in football, you could see a David Beckham turning up to play for AC Milan during the off season at MLS. One can argue that there is no conflict of interests in his case, as Milan and LA Galaxy don't compete with one another and their only chance of going against each other is in Club World Cup (I don't think LA will ever make thus far, at least, not in my lifetime lol). But what I am trying to imply is this regulation that a player should play for only one team can't work unless these domestic leagues run for year long. As far as players' representation goes, I think, in future, the players should sign contracts with the franchises for their services in IPL ALONE. When it comes to the CL, the players should be given the choice. Anyway, there is no such thing as "loyalty" in club cricket unlike in football, and players (most of them at least) would care less as to who they turn up for, except, Bravo. In his case, he will be rep. his country and I am very sure he would have been hell bound to play for TT. Can't say the same for Pollard, though.

[Gunner_Mania]

Anyway, there is no such thing as "loyalty" in club cricket unlike in football, .

sorry to digress..but Don ..really:P