Zap_Brannigan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 So ICC goes the UN way. Cricket is probably the only sport where a major revenue generator doesnt get more votes. It pretty much happens every where else. Cricket is also the only sport where the TV revenue rights are lop sided to give more money to the boards that doesn't bring anything into it. Makes no sense to have bilateral ties with other teams if one board doesnt want to and to keep providing for corrupt board members extravagant lifestyle. Maybe this will be the kick in SL,Pak,WI needs to get of their asses and do their job, spread the game in their country properly and rely on a self sufficient model rather than looking for handouts.
G_B_ Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 @zap windies to be fair have managed to host the CPL, I think they should be financially self sufficient soon enough. SL and Pak are the issues. Nz is well governed but too small to generate the funds.
cowboysfan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Its sad that greed is the primary motivator in all sports nowadays,the small teams will be Oliver begging before the trinity for some games.
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 I dont understand how greed doesnt get associated with the smaller teams. Arent they the one that are always looking for a handout. SL sold their TV rights for a very low amount to some politician. PCB staff have luxurious holidays with the board money. Zim and BD as mismanaged too. All this is paid for by the top 3 boards. India has helped WI a lot and thankfully, CPL will put them in the right track. NZ and SA will survive too. I really wish more is spent on associate nations rather than enabling corrupt boards in the current top 10.
Muloghonto Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Its sad that greed is the primary motivator in all sports nowadays' date='the small teams will be Oliver begging before the trinity for some games.[/quote'] Greed has been the primary motivator for almost all sports and almost all human endavor since the invention of capitalism. Greed is the way to make it big in sports- just look at the club successes in soccer, football, hockey,baseball, rugby- all team sports barring cricket have long since accepted that inorder to make a quality sport, you need the franchising model of private teams playing in leagues that attract top level talent by shelling out top level moolah. International team sport is a side-show to franchise competitions in all team sports but cricket, its about time cricket joined the list too.
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 When BCCI wants more money, its greed. But what is it when SL and Pak wants more money?
cowboysfan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 When BCCI wants more money' date=' its greed. But what is it when SL and Pak wants more money?[/quote'] SL and pakis are not the only teams being squeezed out here,what is the purpose of ICC if the top 3 decide they can play whoever they want at anytime?
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 SL and pakis are not the only teams being squeezed out here' date='what is the purpose of ICC if the top 3 decide they can play whoever they want at anytime?[/quote'] ICC shouldnt be holding a tournament every year just to enable corrupt boards and their extravagant spending. Their job should be to spread the game in associate nations.They really shouldnt be giving 75% of their profits to the test nations. They should be spending more on the associate nations. Do you think any board other than the top 3 will agree to this? I really dont understand why you expect BCCI to bankroll other boards. No other sports or collection on bodies work this way. US funds the most in UN and it gets a VETO vote. What does BCCI get? FIFA has 1 tournament every 4 years. Other than that it really doesnt care who countries plays. No other sport has an international board controlling their revenue scheme as ICC does. Isnt this what the top 3 are saying right now. If the other boards arent self sufficient and want to depend on the top 3 for their survival, then let the top 3 handle things. There is really not need for a vote each for Pak and SL in the big boys table.
Muloghonto Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Not to nitpick but FIFA has more than 1 tournament every year. Copa America, EuroCup are all FIFA events.
bsriharsha Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 I'm not worried about the revenue-sharing. Keep in mind that this is only for the ICC events and not about the rights for bilateral series. What pisses me off more is the tier system being perverted to such an extent that there is no way that eng/aus and ind can get relegated. If a total of 6 teams are playing in the top tier , and assuming that SA will never get relegated. Are the likes of WI/SL/Pak and NZ going to come up and down every four years regardless of their performances ? Have the tier system and have the relegation rules apply for all , That would be a fair show. Then the FTP, this has become even more of a farce than it already is.
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 yeah, the confederation cup etc...but it doesnt exploit it like the ICC does. ICC basically outlawed multi-nation tournament just to keep only the champions trophy and World cup as big multi national tournaments. We, the fans, cannot witness great tournaments like the B&H cup, hero cup, australasia cup etc. ICC forces players to abandon their personal sponsorship if it goes against their sponsors 2 weeks prior to the start of an ICC tournament. Champions trophy, which started as a short tournament to spread game in associate nations, suddenly became the 2nd biggest cricket tournament. All the talk about preserving test cricket only to abandon the test championship idea when TV rights holder werent interested. The whole changing of format of the world cup to keep ESPN happy. ICC and boards other than BCCI, downright exploits the wealth India generates. Did everyone really think that BCCI will be happy with just 10% of the revenue when it creates 80% of it?
zep1706 Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 So we are going back to the old days when Australia and England had vetoes. It's ironic cause BCCI were the ones who fought against it and got it abolished.
bsriharsha Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 The Discussion about the financial revenue sharing is secondary to be honest. This is only for the ICC events. Regular bilateral series with the other teams would bring more revenue for the boards than this. If the likes of SLC , despite being given loan after loan, to get their affairs in order...can't survive on bilateral series revenue rights , then **** them... The main problem is the perverted version of the tier system which willl kill the game
bsriharsha Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 So we are going back to the old days when Australia and England had vetoes. It's ironic cause BCCI were the ones who fought against it and got it abolished. yup :(
gattaca Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 So If BCCI, CA and ECB do it. Still BCCI will be blamed.
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 So we are going back to the old days when Australia and England had vetoes. It's ironic cause BCCI were the ones who fought against it and got it abolished. Yes. Its not ironic at all. BCCI fought the VETO in the 90s when it was bringing in more or less the same amount of money as ECB. Now it brings in more. If BCCI had said that in the 70's and 80's, when it was one of the poorer boards, then it would be ironic.
Malcolm Merlyn Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 !@@$@!$# Srinivasan.Someone throw him out of BCCI.
zep1706 Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Yes. Its not ironic at all. BCCI fought the VETO in the 90s when it was bringing in more or less the same amount of money as ECB. Now it brings in more. If BCCI had said that in the 70's and 80's' date=' when it was one of the poorer boards, then it would be ironic.[/quote'] The difference is that they could have started a three way veto system even then instead of abolishing it completely. So there was definitely an argument to make it more "democratic" and hence it is ironic now.
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 The Discussion about the financial revenue sharing is secondary to be honest. This is only for the ICC events. Regular bilateral series with the other teams would bring more revenue for the boards than this. If the likes of SLC , despite being given loan after loan, to get their affairs in order...can't survive on bilateral series revenue rights , then **** them... I dont think that this is the end game of BCCI. The ftp basically demands that India tour other countries with the same conditions as the other teams i.e the host country pays for the travel+accommodation and keeps all the revenue. But without the FTP, the BCCI can demand a slice of the TV rights or more money to tour, as it should be able to. BCCI gets on an average 7.5 million $ a year from ICC for 1 to 2 months of its time playing in ICC tournaments. Meanwhile BCCI makes 100 million in profits from IPL in the same 2 months. ICC handouts make less than 5% of BCCI's revenue. So its safe to say that BCCI really doesnt care about the revenue stream of ICC tournaments in the long run. It is the pawn that its using currently, to move towards what it wants i.e. all the TV rights to all the Indian games, home and away.
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 The difference is that they could have started a three way veto system even then instead of abolishing it completely. So there was definitely an argument to make it more "democratic" and hence it is ironic now. Democracy doesnt work in a system filled with 70% idiots. India is a big example of that.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now