achilles Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 ^^^ Game set match Someone. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Good question' date=' but since he is not unilaterally taking decisions and that too decisions which benefit more than just his team, I think it is overblown.[/quote'] I presume he has a vote, so even if not unilateral his influence can certainly be decisive. I also presume he has the right to speak in meetings and present his view. No other franchise has a representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectre Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Lets look at Srinivasan and Player retainment as seperate points to discuss. No one here says what srinivasan does is correct. Whether holding mutilple positions is legally allowed or within the framework is something i am least bit interested in and wish to debate Regarding retaining player, some of you say only CSK and MI were open for it. Others were opposing it. Then why did DD, BRC and RR retain some of their key players, when they opposed it, where did their principles go. They could have sat happily with a 9 million purse naa. The only teams which didnt retain players are KXIP, KKR, DC - the worst teams of the lot, no wonder why didnt retain any... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowU Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Regarding retaining player, some of you say only CSK and MI were open for it. Others were opposing it. Then why did DD, BRC and RR retain some of their key players, when they opposed it, where did their principles go. They had to eventually go with the flow of those rules and thus had utilize their strategy with the rules implemented. Its about business, its not about morals when you dont have a chance to change the rules. The only teams which didnt retain players are KXIP, KKR, DC - the worst teams of the lot, no wonder why didnt retain any... DC aint a shite team :finger: KKR and KXIP punjab thought having a couple of egos and masala = championship :giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectre Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 DC aint a shite team :finger: DC is my second favourite, but they under achieved with the squad they had, seriously. They had the strongest team in first IPL, but screwed it up. Second IPL, they had plenty of luck . It was in IPL3 where they really played well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowU Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 DC is my second favourite' date=' but they under achieved with the squad they had, seriously. They had the strongest team in first IPL, but screwed it up. Second IPL, they had plenty of luck . It was in IPL3 where they really played well[/quote'] They overachieved imo. Not once did they have a balanced squad. Its either lacking in bowling or batting. This year its batting. Results wise they are one of the more successful teams barring the first season, but that wont last long with the constant deficiencies in the squad composition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holysmoke Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Mumbai Indians have sought an explanation from the IPL regarding a last-minute change in the auction procedure, which they feel compromised the "level-playing field" for all franchises. In a two-page letter (a copy of which is available with ESPNcricinfo), Mumbai referred specifically to the clause in the 'Player Auction Briefing' dated December 17, 2010, which stated that the auction of player sets would occur in random order. But on the eve of the auction (held on January 8 and 9), two hours before the final auction briefing, the franchises were sent an email containing an amendment which stated that the random order would be replaced by pre-decided 'order of the auction list'. The clause was in paragraph 18 of the original Player Auction Briefing, which read: "Players in the auction would be divided into 'sets'. The initial sets would comprise marquee players. Subsequent sets would each comprise players with the same specialism (batsmen, bowlers, allrounders, wicketkeepers). The order of these subsequent sets would be determined by random draw that will take place in the auction room." According to Nikhil Meswani of Indiawin Sports Private Ltd (parent company of Mumbai), who signed the letter, there was a sudden and unexplained change made to the above clause the day before the auction. "The final sentence of paragraph 18 is to be deleted. The sets will be presented to the auction in the order of the auction list." Meswani noted that this was a "fundamental change" to the auction process. "The primary purpose of deciding the order of the auction (whether of subsequent sets or the players within the sets) through random draw in the auction room in presence of the bidders is to ensure transparency and a level playing field to all the franchisees so that all the franchisees are not only privy to the process but are treated in the same manner and no particular team receives preferred treatment," Meswani said. According to him any such change warranted strong and justifiable reasons, which he felt were not there or explained. To clarify the matter, Mumbai have asked the IPL governing council for ten bits of information including documents. Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo RSS Feeds: Nagraj Gollapudi © ESPN EMEA Ltd. Remember the article about some franchise member complaining that chennai smartly kept all their players after the marquee players so that all other teams had exhausted their major purse by then.. all makes sense now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 What does it mean - "kept all their players after marquee players"? Didn't Marquee players go first anyways for all teams? Are people complaining that the auction didn't start with Badri and Balaji so that people could have bid millions on them? :hehe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holysmoke Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 What does it mean - "kept all their players after marquee players"? Didn't Marquee players go first anyways for all teams? Are people complaining that the auction didn't start with Badri and Balaji so that people could have bid millions on them? :hehe: Yes. If players like Botha can start off the auction and be in the marquee players list, why cant bollinger, who was a proven performer in the IPL? Why was he kept for later? If players like RP singh can be among the marquee players, why cant Badrinath be? Why was he pushed back? For your info, RP singh last played for India in 2009. Badri last played for India in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I think MI is powerful enough to rally the other teams together coz everyone is anyways disappointed with their picks. Lets hope a fiasco is avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandyFloss Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 too much politics in Indian cricket. my bro wanted to play 4 India but never got chance. he quit his studies also but theres too much politics in every stage in India Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowU Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 too much politics in Indian cricket. my bro wanted to play 4 India but never got chance. he quit his studies also but theres too much politics in every stage in India But I was better then your bro :(( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Yes. If players like Botha can start off the auction and be in the marquee players list, why cant bollinger, who was a proven performer in the IPL? Why was he kept for later? If players like RP singh can be among the marquee players, why cant Badrinath be? Why was he pushed back? For your info, RP singh last played for India in 2009. Badri last played for India in 2010. Marquee players list is not based on IPL performance. It is based on some random BCCI thing. That is how the base price is set. As I understand the issue here isn't why some players were Marquee why others weren't. The issue seems to be that the set of players (bowlers, batsmen, ...) was supposed to be random, but a day before the auction they decided on a set order, meaning bowlers first, keepers second, or whatever. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 This is exactly why I am saying that N Srinivasan is a real curprit. When there is lack of clarity of rules, roles and everything else in IPL. There stands a owner of CSK who is behind as the brains of making of the rules and roles. It does not inspire any confidence and definately raises a lot of questions. There have been rules already changed in favor of N Srinivasan(remember no bcci related staff can own the team at the start of IPL rule suddently changed at the end of IPL 1) and surely if one rule can change, it can only mean there are or even have been many other changes for one particular member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 ^^^From what I gather, MI got a rule change in regarding upcapped/local players not going back to auction, ofc to their benefit. So, rule changes are the norm under our beloved BCCI. As I have said before I agree that this conflict of interest is a problem, but not as a big as people make it out to be. All of Chennai's players were bid on, the team lost some, retained some, donno why there is so much biatching though. They went hard after their players, which is why they could retain them, not because others had no money left. And chennai went hard after some of the earlier bid players also, just that they stopped short of bankrupting themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 ^^^From what I gather, MI got a rule change in regarding upcapped/local players not going back to auction, ofc to their benefit. So, rule changes are the norm under our beloved BCCI. As I have said before I agree that this conflict of interest is a problem, but not as a big as people make it out to be. All of Chennai's players were bid on, the team lost some, retained some, donno why there is so much biatching though. They went hard after their players, which is why they could retain them, not because others had no money left. And chennai went hard after some of the earlier bid players also, just that they stopped short of bankrupting themselves. Now that is another matter. First you do agree that conflicts of interest does exist. Good. But you think it is a small issue? Really. Fundamentals of IPL are being changed and dominated by a single person and there can be many more hidden changes. It is a big problem and will only get bigger. The thing is this problem was since the start of IPL 2009. IPL and BCCI has had a chance to stop or reduce the problem but they have only made it bigger by making Srinavasan having a even increasing role and power in both sectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Man may find a fall guy, but there will come a time when he will fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts