India, Australia and England in attempt to take control of cricket

[StriKe]

The ICC is to consider a comprehensive structural overhaul of world cricket administration that will effectively cede most executive decision-making to the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB. A draft proposal on these lines will be presented to the ICC Executive Board during its quarterly meeting in Dubai on January 28 and 29. The proposal, drafted by a "working group" of the ICC's Finance & Commercial Affairs (F&CA) committee - in which the BCCI, CA and ECB are key members - recommends wide-ranging changes in the ICC's revenue distribution model, administrative structures and the Future Tours Programme (FTP), questions the relevance of Test rankings and suggests the reinstatement of the Champions Trophy over the World Test Championship. And almost every recommendation of the "position paper" gives a larger share of control over world cricket to the Australian, English and Indian cricket boards - both in the boardroom and on the field. It also gives them a larger share of revenues, in a ratio that is linked to the ICC's revenue growth. The ICC says these radical proposals await response from and the approval of member boards. The document does, however, contain an April deadline for the formation of the ICC Business Co (IBC) - a newly formed business arm which will be set up to replace the existing IDI (ICC Development International) - in order to take over the task of issuing tenders for the ICC's next media rights and sponsorship cycle. The proposal recommends creating a four-member group called the Executive Committee (ExCo) between ICC committees and the Executive Board, which consists of the heads of national boards. The ExCo, the proposal recommends, will include three permanent representatives from CA, ECB and BCCI, who will share an annual rotating chairmanship. A fourth member of the ExCo will be nominated by the ICC's Executive Board and come from the seven other Full Member nations. The ExCo, if created according to the draft, will become "the sole recommendation committee … on all constitutional, personnel, integrity, ethics, development and nominations matters." Giles Clarke and N Srinivasan at the ICC's executive board meeting, London, Friday, October 18, 2013 Giles Clarke of the ECB and N Srinivasan of the BCCI, two of the three national boards that could be handed a larger share of control over world cricket © Getty Images Enlarge When detailing Test match promotion and relegation, the document states that "relegation exceptions" will apply to India, England and Australia. This is "solely in order to protect ICC income due to the importance of those markets and teams to prospective ICC media rights buyers." This document was made available to the ICC member nations in Dubai on January 9, as part of a special meeting called in addition to the normal ICC Board meetings held every three months. There is a possibility that the proposal could be even be brought to vote as early as the January meeting even though the ICC, which offered no formal statement, indicated that the document was a only working paper that awaited both response and approval from the Board. There had been a buzz among member nations that these proposals were being worked on between BCCI, CA and the ECB over the past six months but the first that other member nations saw of it was the document on January 9. A representative of a Full Member board outside the BCCI-CA-ECB triad said the proposals were a radical return to the old "veto system" in which England and Australia controlled all decision-making. The newest, richest and, therefore, most influential entrant into this club of power is the BCCI. "They are attaching the right of a country to rule the cricket world to its economic strength", this official said. The proposal by the BCCI, CA and the ECB to exempt themselves from relegation was, he said, contradictory: "On one side, they say they are following meritocracy. But then they base promotion and relegation on financial strength." At an administrative level, the recently-created post of ICC chairman, (meant to reduce the powers of the president and be given to the "the best man for the job") will, according to the new proposal, become an annual rotation between "one of the nominees of the ECB, CA or the BCCI." Similarly, the BCCI-CA-ECB will nominate the annual chairman of the Finance & Commercial committee, thus nominating their own candidates in three key ICC positions: the head of the ExCo, the F&CA committee and the chairmanship of the ICC. The ICC chairman will not head other major committees of the ICC, its F&CA committee or the IBC, the commercial arm of the ICC. The proposal states that the IBC is to be "established immediately" in order to take charge of the next cycle of ICC media and sponsorship rights from 2015-2023. The immediacy being referred to is the ICC Board meeting of April 2014. The bulk of the "position paper" comprises a section focusing on a 'distribution model' of ICC revenues. The ICC's current funding model distributes surplus revenues equally among Full Members and, in smaller proportions, to its Associate and Affiliate members. This, the proposal says, "does not recognise the contribution of individual members" and provides for a "distorted distribution model that undermines self-sufficiency." The "value contribution" of India is listed as "over 80%" with the other Full Members' contribution ranging between "0.1% to 5%." The proposal says: "If ICC funds were entirely allocated on the basis of where they came from, all Members bar two would suffer a seriously damaging reduction in their funding," a position "not favoured by BCCI, the ECB or CA." To redress the "distorted distribution model", the new model recommends the creation of a "contribution cost" as recognition for every member's role in "contributing to generating ICC's revenues required to sustain the game." An estimate of the percentage break-up of "contribution costs" to the entire ICC revenue has been "worked on and negotiated by" the BCCI, the ECB and CA; this accords the three boards greater shares of the ICC's revenues as they increase. At the current rights-cycle revenue levels of $1.5 billion, for example, the BCCI's share would be 4.2%; should the new rights cycle gross revenue cross $3.5 billion, the BCCI's share will be 21% - a total of $766 million. The BCCI-CA-ECB have also recommended the formation of a "standing team" of representatives from each of the Boards who have a mandate to look at "every element of each ICC event and event costs" and will regularly report to the F&CA committee. The ICC's finance and commercial affairs committee, whose working group has put together these proposals, comprises the following: Giles Clarke (chairman, ECB), Alan Isaac (ICC president), Dave Richardson (chief executive), N Srinivasan (BCCI), Neil Speight (Associate and Affiliate member/ Bermuda Cricket Board), Wally Edwards (CA), Dave Cameron (WICB), with Campbell Jamieson (GM, commercial) and Faisal Hasnain (CFO).

[Zap_Brannigan]

Key proposals of the draft

From one extreme to the other. All the other countries took India's money but gave it no power. Now BCCI decides that it has had enough and want to keep its money and take hold of the power. Maybe if the other countries weren't greedy, this wouldn't have happened. Ireland hasnt got test status because the greedy poorer nations didn't want to give it a cut of the ICC profit sharing. Now, they wont have that choice. In this new structure, If the top 3 are good, then they could help the associate nations more than the current ICC could. But as expected, if they are not so benevolent, they could do to SL/Pak/NZ/BD what these so called non-greedy poorer nations have been doing to the associate nations. Either way, the socialist nature of the current structure was bound to fail when the rich wakes up.

[bulbul]

One topic where Zap trumps all :giggle: ps : India cements executive? :winky:

[Debutant]

I just want 6 months of IPL

[Zap_Brannigan]

One topic where Zap trumps all :giggle: ps : India cements executive? :winky:

I hate Srinivasan a lot more since i support CSK in IPL and not really fond of Dhoni as captain of any T20 team. I just find it incredibly hypocritical of peoples stand here. BCCI or ECB or CA are not the only greedy ones. The so called poorer nations are the biggest culprits. These boards are basically saying "Give us a handout and stay out of my business". The current financial model is not fair at all. It enables these corrupt boards to keep doing what they do while holding a begging hand towards the ICC. Why is the ICC distributing 75% of its profits to nations where cricket is already developed. They should be using that to spread the game in the associate nations. I am not happy with either the current model or the newly proposed model. I am just pointing out the hypocritical nature of the other test nations.

[G_B_]

i agree with most of those points except for no relegation for India Aus and England. so if you have 6 and 6 that basically means that only SA Pak and Sl for example can get relegated. and if England/India and Aus are at the bottom then most likely the winner of the league below them is denied promotion.

[GoldenSun]

Jarrod Kimber's call to action

The fact that Australia, England and India have formed a cabal to choke the game of cricket is not exactly new. Like a bum with a sandwich board, myself and others have been walking the streets of cricket shouting this message for a long time. During the Champions Trophy I wrote that only the top three in cricket matter. Before that I started making a documentary on the death of Test cricket. And during this Boxing Day Test at the MCG, I was chatting to ABC Grandstand about it. If you follow cricket politicking at all (and I do, so you don't have too), you could see this coming. So it was nice that Sharda Ugra showed that it was not just a conspiracy theory by a few nut jobs. That it was a real takeover of cricket by the greedy and wealthy. But what does this leaked draft actually mean, and is the ICC financial and commercial committee actually run by giant lizards? I tried to answer a few questions that people had. In a word, good or bad for Test cricket? Bad, not just for Tests, but for all international cricket. If there is promotion and relegation in Test cricket, but Australia, England and India can't be relegated, isn't that cheating? It's not just cheating, it's organised fixing. Any individual who signs off on a regulation like this is corrupting the game, and should be banned by the ICC for their action. They are ensuring the result of the competition before a game is played. The integrity of the game is corrupted as much as by any huge no-ball. They might as well only let other teams use five batsmen, bowl with beach balls and field with sponsored flippers on. As long as the sponsorship money is split unfairly, favouring the stronger nation. Who are the people involved in this secret dossier for cricket's potential kidnapping? The names of the people on the committee that the draft came from are Giles Clarke (chairman, ECB), Alan Isaac (ICC president), Dave Richardson (chief executive), N Srinivasan (BCCI), Neil Speight (Associate and Affiliate member, Bermuda Cricket Board), Wally Edwards (CA), Dave Cameron (WICB), Campbell Jamieson (GM, commercial) and Faisal Hasnain (CFO). But the big winners, if the draft was implemented, would be Clarke, Srinivasan and Edwards. It is they who will be taking over cricket officially on behalf of their boards. We don't have the details of who the architects of the plan are, but being that these men and their boards get the best deal, it's not a big stretch to believe they were behind it. I doubt the Bermuda chairman acted alone in this. What did the FTP do? What does FTP stand for and why does it matter? The FTP is (was?) the Future Tours Programme. It essentially meant that teams would have to play everyone, and not just who they wanted to play with. It was brought in to ensure that teams had a schedule to play each other and ICC tournaments. It helped sell TV rights and aided smaller nations financially by drawing them up against teams with larger markets and on the cricket field through experience against the best teams. It was a flawed but well-meaning system of sharing the wealth and making cricket fairer. Wasn't the FTP ignored? Occasionally. It was more a nagging aunty than a scary prison guard. I know Australia have played Bangladesh, I just can't remember when. And Bangladesh have never toured India. Things are moved around on a whim quite often, but it at least meant that if something did happen, like Sri Lanka and West Indies cancelling their Test series, they had to come out and say it, not just silently agree never to play again. No FTP makes it all a bit more covert and easier for board members to ruin things without us noticing. Why does it matter if the big three countries make more money from ICC tournaments and share the ICC top jobs? Don't they already own and run cricket? Yes, they do. But it matters because cricket isn't limited to three nations, or even ten. There are 106 member nations of the ICC. If this structural upheaval happens, less money and no power will escape this evil cricket cabal. These dirty three will be able to continue to rule cricket forever for their own good. And they'll have the backing of cricket's governing body, which will essentially be them in all but name. Will cricket's best interests really be looked after by these three nations? One recently got involved with a fraudulent crook; the second stopped players picking who they wanted to represent them at the ICC level; and the final one wanted all the other nations locked out of the World Cup. Isn't the current ICC set-up terrible anyway? If by that you mean there are no votes at ICC boardrooms, that it's run by the ten Test-playing boards who are all out for their own good and that India have all the financial muscle, then yes. The Woolf Report, an independent evaluation of the ICC (that the boards never wanted, and of which they ignored all but the bits that helped them keep their stranglehold), suggested that cricket needed to be independently run, instead of by the member boards. But at least the current set-up, as pointless and ignored as it is, gave ten nations a say. Sport is a business, and this is just a business decision, isn't it? It is a business decision. A bad one. A short-term one. Like most decisions made by cricket officials, it follows the money where it is right now. It doesn't look ahead. It doesn't grow the game or improve it. It picks cricket up by its underwear and takes what is in its pocket. Surprisingly, most billion-dollar businesses aren't run by unpaid men who face absolutely no consequence if they completely stuff up the business. Who would have thought a billion-dollar business run by amateurs with no independent management could be taken over so easily? Should Bangladesh prepare for a five-Test match tour of Australia, England or India shortly? No. Which Full Members outside the trio will be playing Test cricket by 2020? It is impossible to tell. But this is not a move to lock in the future of the current Test-playing nations. It is a move to lock in the future of three of them. The rest can go to hell, and by hell, I mean more Champions Trophy tournaments. I'm from outside the cricket cabal but don't really like Test cricket. Why should I care? Because the FTP and ICC restructuring isn't just about Tests. It's about stopping your country from getting money. It's about ensuring through financial means that while three countries will have every single advantage, the others will have to live on far less. Money doesn't guarantee success. But it certainly helps in sport. I'm from inside the cabal. Why should I care about the other nations? Maybe you shouldn't. You'll have all the IPL, Big Bash and Ashes you can eat. But if the other seven teams stop playing Test cricket, or don't play enough to make it relevant, you're going to get pretty damn bored pretty damn quickly. And while you may only watch for your own players, do you really want to live in a world that involves less Sri Lankan mystery spin, New Zealand pluckiness, Misbah-ul-Haq, and the current best Test team on earth? What will happen to the non-Test playing nations? Not much will actually change for them. Life wasn't exactly free beer and endless casual sexual encounters before. If anything, now they have seven new friends who also have no power. Can saner people in the future undo this mess? Yes, probably. Even the old veto was eventually taken away from the ICC. Things can change. If the chairmen of the three cricket boards were to change, it could change very quickly. There is also little doubt that at least one of Clarke, Srinivasan and Edwards wants to eventually run the ICC once the main job there is made more powerful. Which means this reign of bullying and grabbing for power may not end anytime soon. Should these three men step down? Yes. Anyone who agreed with this draft, whether it was their idea or not, should leave cricket immediately. They won't, obviously. But they should. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Someone leaked this draft. Someone who saw it realised that cricket fans wouldn't like this, and instead of it being announced through an ICC press release, it was blurted out before they had a chance to lock it in. In fact, there are many good people working in cricket all around the world. They don't like this situation any more than we do. Hopefully more of them will step forward with details. That gives us a chance. What can I do? Contact them. Don't be rude, don't abuse the people who are answering the emails, calls or letters, but contact them. Tell them what you think of all this. CA can be contacted here, the ECB here, the BCCI here. We have no vote in cricket. All we have is our passion, which is what makes the money that gives these men their power. They are banking on you not knowing or caring about any of this. Giles Clarke regularly tells young cricket writers to stop writing about administration because it's boring and fans don't care about it. What this does is allow cricket's most important men to run the game while no one is watching. Show them you're watching. If you have time to complain about a shocking DRS decision or a terrible cover drive, surely you have time to send an email to the men running the game. Show them you care. Tell them what you think. You have no vote in cricket's future. But you do have the contact pages http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/710789.html

[Scarves]

Yeah international cricket is ****ed. Oh well it was fun while it lasted. It would have been nice if ICC implemented the Wolff but nah...ICC are just pathetic all around.

[GoldenSun]

Yeah international cricket is ****ed. Oh well it was fun while it lasted. It would have been nice if ICC implemented the Wolff but nah...ICC are just pathetic all around.

It's sad that CA are involved in this too....

[Scarves]

Kind of expected really. CA has been eh. The more outcry people make then it more likely it will not happen but it will anyway, so what can you do except hope for a major coup d'etat. IF ONLY EVERYONE LET JOHN HOWARD IN DAMMIT. It's seriously funny that this has all started after Malcolm Speed's reign in ICC.

[G_B_]

I like to think that they have the best interests in the game but nah.... Every team should tour home and away minimum of 3 tests, 5 ODIs and 2 T20 in the space of four years. Cover IPL, if they want to play IPL they miss out on national selection if there is a series going on, if not then they can freely play. Go back to what worked in the 90's with the FTP.

hmm so lets see 10 full members. 9 home and away series in 4 years. Min 3 tests as you say. that works out to 18*3 or 54 tests in 4 years along with 90 odis and 36 T20s in addition to ICC tournaments and the IPL etc. So that means per year a side will have to play 13-14 tests per year about 22-23 ODIs and 9 t20s or about 100 days of international cricket in 365 days. With travelling the prep time I think that works out to a huge work load for the cricketers. So if we add ireland the number jumps. Add Afghanistan and the number is not manageable. The only way IMO you can sustain test international cricket is via a tier system. Whereby there is a sharing of revenues among members whereby each full member gets at-least $30 million a year and has to earn the rest for himself via wins or something like that. Let me tell you about the BCCI's domestic structure. BCCI has about 3000 people in its domestic system/economy (which includes ground staff academy coaches etc and ranji first class players). It also has overheads of maintaining about 50 stadiums. The bulk of whom dont get an ODI or even an IPL match which draw the crowds. Then you have overheads like putting up first class cricketers in hotels for their matches etc travel. I think the expenses for the BCCI are as of now 3000 * £30,0000 per 3000. or about £90 million pounds or about $150 million Australia dollars. Plus salaries on average are rising 10% in India. Ranji per day pay has increased by about 400% excluding the IPL. In addition the BCCI have a infra plan to ensure infra in built across the whole of India. So it has to contribute to the building of stadia and land etc. So its not fair to compare the ACB or even ECB to the BCCI. BCCI has to earn much more than these boards to push cricket to all frontiers in India. For eg the population in Aus is concentrated all along the coasts. In India there are huge states and swathes such as the north east and even states like Chattisgragh who dont have a first class team. States like Uttar Pradesh with 200 million people has 1 first class team. Clearly more first class teams need to be added. Looking at the ECB, i am sure every person in England and wales is living within a 50 mile radius of a county. Thats how spread the infra is. Dont let the headline figures fool you. BCCI actually needs a lot more money. Its downright unfair that NZ who have 6-7 domestic teams spread across their land covering it, end up earning as much as the BCCI at ICC events. The NZC has to cater for 4 million people and is a developed country. The BCCI has more bigger responsibility on its shoulders.

[bulbul]

^bit too much :giggle:

[G_B_]

well bulbul its very easy to slag off the bcci. But clearly they have to provide for 1.2 billion people. Aus have to provide for 20 million and England and wales 55 million. You cannot expect the BCCI to earn as much as NZ from ICC events and be happy about it.

[GoldenSun]

Well whatever happens, I ain't quitting watching cricket.

[G_B_]

Now i think its time to say countries like Ireland (if they are made permanent) BD WI NZ and SL can and should be able to manage their affairs with revenues of $30-$40 million USD per year. Zim Afghanistan cricket probably needs about $20 million each . South Africa Pakistan needs about 50 million USD per year. Those to be fair are the figures of the nations outside the big 3. If a solution can be found whereby the countries in question can achieve that then i dont think anybody should be complaining.

[bulbul]

G_B , BCCI providing for 1.2 billion is bit meh... BCCI also run by mostly crooks so i dont care about them. But if Indian people don't have problem with status quo, i dont think why should we worry about BCCI, afterall BCCI makes money because of us.

[GoldenSun]

Cricinfo folks are on life alert lol...apparently, the beauty of the game is destroyed today.

[bulbul]

^ what beauty? this is not miss world pageant.

[G_B_]

G_B , BCCI providing for 1.2 billion is bit meh... BCCI also run by mostly crooks so i dont care about them. But if Indian people don't have problem with status quo, i dont think why should we worry about BCCI, afterall BCCI makes money because of us.

I am not denying that. But surely we need to make deals whereby the money which is owed to India does reach India. Say some day a person like Kejriwal or even a Rahul Dravid becomes the BCCI prez. Atleast he has now the money to distribute to other parts of the country? Ie your giving him the option. If you let this system remains whereby there is parity with a country of 4 million and 1.2 billion, that by definition is a very unfair system

[G_B_]

like to point out i am fundamentally against England India and Aus being members who cannot be relegated in the system. While frankly that is taking it too far. Thats where merit needs to come in. As far as revenues go IMO its fair for the BCCI to ask for better returns on ICC events considering it brings more to the table than anybody else. 4.2% of ICC tournament revenues is a joke.