Scarves Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Right now there is some interesting movements in that it looks like there is some good change happening because there are 3 boards standing against this draft with a possible 4th coming up and the BCCI, CA and ECB need 7 out of 10, so they need what another 4 more? So we can assume the three are South Africa, Pakistan and I guess Sri Lanka. We know West Indies are supporting the paper and Zimbabwe will be with South Africa, I'm still unsure about Bangladesh. Now it does seem like BCCI, CA and ECB are going back to the drawing board, so it looks like there will be more pressure on the three boards to come up with something good. Now we know that there is a possible boycott by the BCCI in the Wt20 and the Asia Cup and future ICC events and with the possibility of Modi around the corner. We are in a very interesting situation, it is going to be really interesting to see what happens in the next few days or so.
Iconoclast Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 PCB, CSA, SLC and BCB against proposals - Zaka Ashraf Sharda Ugra January 28, 2014 PCB chairman Zaka Ashraf has said that the boards of Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are in opposition to the revamp of administrative and financial structures of the ICC, at the governing body's executive board meeting that is currently on in Dubai. Before entering the meeting, Ashraf told Pakistan's ARY TV, that "Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka, we all have one stance. Let us see what we vote inside. We will stick to our stance." It is now known that CSA, the PCB and SLC had formally written to the ICC, asking for a deferral of the draft "position paper" proposals being pushed through by the BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB, the three richest and most powerful cricket boards. Zaka said he would vote for "whatever is in Pakistan's interests". "We have to see what is in our interests when we vote," he said, adding that during his discussions with the BCCI over the last two days discussions had come up about the two countries playing each other at "neutral venues". In a late development on Monday night, the three cricket boards wrote to the ICC asking that the discussions on the proposal be deferred. While there had been disgruntlement among some of the other seven Full Member nations about the extent of the powers and financial advantages to be gained by the Big Three via the draft proposal - Cricket South Africa had openly termed the proposal "fundamentally flawed" - there had been no sign of any concerted or unified opposition to the document until the three boards wrote to the ICC. The three opposing boards were seeking more time to look through and internally discuss the radical changes being recommended in the "position paper". It is understood that one of the three boards had originally sought a deferral as early as January 24. The BCB, while not using the word "delay" or "deferral" had formally asked for "further discussions" on the matter. The BCCI, Cricket Australia and the ECB were expected to present, to the other Full Members, a set of re-drafted "resolutions" around their radical "position paper" at the ICC meeting in Dubai on Tuesday. The Big Three had been involved in aggressive lobbying on the sidelines for the past two days on sidelines of the ICC's Finance & Commercial Affairs committee meeting. The request for a deferral has altered the situation with regards to the number of countries that are backing the Big Three's new plan for world cricket: while most changes in the executive board require a minimum of seven boards to be in agreement, significant constitutional changes - which the proposals are recommending in executive and financial matters - require eight votes. There is also possibility that the draft "position paper" could be treated more than a routine recommendation because of its comprehensive proposals. The fact that it asks for far-reaching changes in administrative structures, financial distribution and the creation of an entirely new commercial wing of the ICC could require a "special meeting" to pass what the ICC's constitution refers to as a "special resolution". To get a special resolution passed, eight out of the 10 Full Members will need to back the proposal according to the ICC Constitution. Article 6.12 a)3)b) in the constitution, which deals with voting on a special resolution, reads: "Resolution proposed at Conference or at a Special Meeting shall be deemed to have been carried as a Special Resolution only if not less than three-quarters of the aggregate number of votes exercisable by all the Full Members shall have been cast in favour of the Resolution, irrespective of whether or not all of the Full Members shall have actually been present in person or by proxy."
Magneto Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 When the real meeting happens, all of them will act like bheegi billis in front of Srini Mama, poking each other 'oye tu bol na, tu bol na' and so on. They should improve the draft proposal by adding that the Big 3 automatically qualifies for all World Cup semis, and the 4th semi-finalist would be selected after all the gareeb teams play with each other to decide the winner.
SLICKR392 Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 ^True This is just him saying. Let us see what happens during the actual meeting.
Pagalpanti Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 They r just playing hard-ball. Want a better deal probably. Anyway if it doesn't go through today, when will the next meeting be held?
Magneto Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 They r just playing hard-ball. Want a better deal probably. Anyway if it doesn't go through today, when will the next meeting be held? They need to have some balls to play hard. :giggle: Bunch of wimpy cricketing boards. I wonder if something similar can happen in any other sport.
Pakistan Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Level playing field the key to wealth Level playing field the key to wealth By Dileep Premachandran | 27 January 2014 On the eve of an International Cricket Council meeting that could have huge ramifications for the game’s future, a concerned fan asked: “What would happen if the star attractions in the IPL such as Mumbai [indians] and Chennai [super Kings] ask for a greater share of IPL broadcasting revenue than the other IPL teams? Would the BCCI use the proposed ICC model of fund distribution?†It’s a valid query. Depending on where you stand according to the ideology compass, franchise-model sport represents the best or worst of capitalism at work. And yet – and can there be a greater irony? – most leagues, including the IPL with its limited auction purses, take great pains to ensure a level playing field. The wiser administrators in sport, and there are still a few around, have recognised that keen competition is the secret to commercial success. Next weekend, Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos face off in the National Football League’s showpiece, the Super Bowl. The Seahawks have been part of American football’s summit clash only once, back in 2006. The Broncos have been there six times, but the last trip was as long ago as 1999. What does any of this have to do with cricket, you might well ask? Well, if you went by the financial-might-is-right argument, neither team has any business playing in the biggest game. Seattle against Denver is the kind of contest that cricket apparently doesn’t want to see more of. Goliath v Goliath is the future, with the Davids pushed to the margins. If you go by population, Seattle and Denver rank 22nd and 23rd among US cities. Franchises like New York Giants, Chicago Bears and Dallas Cowboys play in far bigger markets, and have access to a wider fan base and potentially more sponsors. America’s game thrives, however, because of what you could call underlying ‘socialist’ principles. The league shares between half and 75% of all revenue equally among the 32 franchises. In the 1990s, it went a step further, with a supplementary revenue sharing scheme. Even with such measures in place, there are those that worry. Jim Irsay, who owns the Indianapolis Colts, was recently quoted in the SportsBusiness Journal as saying: “It is concerning to me when someone is doubling the lowest-revenue team. My feeling is I would like to see less disparity between the three at the top and the three at the bottom.†International cricket is not franchise sport, but it begs the question: What would Mr. Irsay think of the income disparity between India and Zimbabwe, both full members of the ICC? Several of the arguments in recent days – and I’m not saying that they’re totally flawed – have stressed on how sport needs to be run like a business. Fair enough. The bottom line does matter. But here’s the catch. The administrators that drafted this position paper had little to do with the creation of the wealth that their respective boards enjoy. N Srinivasan did not make Indian cricket impossibly rich. Wally Edwards isn’t the reason for Cricket Australia’s bank balance. It’s the television companies and sponsors, each prompted by fan interest, which are responsible. Without eyeballs watching, the position paper would have all the value of confetti. What sort of research has been done to show that this revamp is the way forward? If it exists, don’t the millions of fans that ultimately account for these lucrative TV deals deserve to see it? If you think even medium term, there can be no justification for sidelining many for the benefit of the big three. To have a robust sport, you need more competitive teams. For those sides to be competitive, they need access to the sort of funds that the big boys can boast of. Academies and grassroots coaching programmes don’t build themselves. It’s not just American sport that tries to maintain a veneer of equality. During the days when he seldom spoke of anything other than billion-dollar deals, Lalit Modi often alluded to his hopes for the IPL one day surpassing the English Premier League in terms of commercial might. But even a cursory look at how TV money was distributed among English football clubs in the 2012-13 season should tell you that a skewed playing field is not the answer. Queens Park Rangers, who finished bottom, banked 39.75 million pounds, roughly two thirds of what Manchester United, the champions, made (60.8 million pounds). United are a global brand, with millions of followers across the globe. QPR are not even the fifth-most popular club in London. Sadly, though, those that have drafted the position paper seem to have taken their cue from Spain and La Liga, where Barcelona and Real Madrid have negotiated separate deals for themselves in perhaps the most blatant example of financial doping that sport has ever seen. In 2012-13, the big two in Spain each took home 140 million Euros in TV revenue. Granada, who finished bottom, had to settle for 12 million. Of course, there will be those who say that merit or excellence should be rewarded. My view is that the ‘meritocracy’ argument is the last refuge of those that have enjoyed every privilege, who simply don’t realise how hard it is for others to get a leg up to that level. In September 2012, Jose Maria Gay de Liebana, Spain’s best known football economist, told Soccernet that Spanish football could ‘kill itself’ within five years. “La Liga’s television rights are badly sold because they are shared between two operators, when in the rest of Europe negotiations are with one party,†he said. “Also, in my opinion, the Chinese market is wrongly prioritised, when the American and Japanese are more relevant. In this way, the global reach of the contracts should be changed.†One of his suggestions was an Iberian league, which would make the ‘lesser’ clubs less dependent on the marquee two. It’s something for the Small Seven to ponder as well. If they stick together, they have a chance to help chart a sensible course for the sport. But if they succumb to the crumbs thrown their way, they deserve little better than the famine that’s coming. Source: http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-blog/level-playing-field-key-wealth/96113 :hatsoff:
SLICKR392 Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Any reports on the meeting? Heard it just got over.
BeautifulGame Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 England, India & Australia: ICC gives more power to 'Big Three' After a heated meeting that lasted more than six hours, the ICC's Board did not bring to vote the radical draft suggested by its three richest and most powerful members, following objections from other member boards. A follow-up meeting will be held to discuss the proposals again next month. The ICC's release on the meeting stated that there had been "unanimous approval for a set of principles relating to the future structure, governance and financial models of the ICC." This came less than an hour after BCB media committee chairman Jalal Yunus told ESPNcricinfo that the BCB was opposed to the drafts proposals. The BCB later issued a press release restating their opposition. "We have communicated to the ICC Board that the BCB will not endorse any proposal that compromises Bangladesh's full member rights in terms of status and participation," BCB's acting CEO Nizamuddin Chowdhary said. "Bangladesh was the only full member nation to take a stand on this issue." Along with BCB, three other boards CSA, PCB and SLC had asked for a deferral of the draft proposals, requesting for time to study them. PCB chairman Zaka Ashraf told a Pakistani TV channel before going into the meeting, "Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa and Sri Lanka, we all have one stance. Let us see what we vote inside. We will stick to our stance." Officials from all the four nations who emerged from the meeting, said the matter had not gone to the vote. The ICC press release, however, quoted president Alan Isaac as saying, "there is more work to be done by the Members in developing their schedules of bilateral cricket while at the ICC we need to work through the detail of the manner in which these principles will be implemented ... Extensive work will now be undertaken in advance of a follow-up Board meeting next month." Isaac was hopeful that an agreement could be reached soon. "The principles agreed today provide clear evidence that through the course of further discussions over the coming weeks we can be increasingly confident in achieving consensus." Changes from original proposals 1. Original Two-tiers with promotion and relegation of Nos 9 &10 ranked team, with BCCI, CA & ECB exempt from relegation. New principle There will be an opportunity for all Members to play all formats of cricket on merit, with participation based on meritocracy; no immunity to any country, and no change to membership status. 2. Original Creation of a Test Cricket fund to be distributed among BCB, ZC, NZC, SLC, PCB and WICB. New principle Test Cricket fund money to be available to South Africa as well 3. Original An Executive Committee (ExCo) to have four members, include three permanent representatives from CSA, BCCI and ECB who would share an annual rotating chairmanship. New principle The establishment of an ExCo and Financial & Commercial Affairs Committee (F&CA) to provide leadership at an operational level, with five members, including BCCI, CA and ECB representatives http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/713605.html Also from BBC http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cricket/25933374 The key principles in full are: 1. An opportunity for all members to play all formats of cricket on merit, with participation based on meritocracy; no immunity for any country, and no change to membership status 2. A Test Cricket Fund paid equally on an annual basis to all full members (except the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Cricket Australia and the England and Wales Cricket Board) to encourage and support Test match cricket 3. Mutually agreed bilateral tour agreements which will be legally binding and run during the ICC commercial rights cycle (2015-2023) 4.Recognition of the need for strong leadership of the ICC, involving leading members, which will involve BCCI taking a central leadership responsibility 5.The varying contributions of full members to ICC events to be recognised through 'contribution costs' 6.The establishment of an Executive Committee (ExCo) and Financial & Commercial Affairs Committee (F&CA) to provide leadership at an operational level, with five members, including BCCI, CA and ECB representatives 7.Three major ICC events in each four-year cycle, with the Champions Trophy replacing the World Test Championship So the revenue sharing proposal agreed with India getting more from ICC tournaments (point 5), no more FTP (means more IPL :yay:) and BCCI will be given central leadership of world cricket officially :hysterical:
BeautifulGame Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Any reports on the meeting? Heard it just got over. Yeah all our proposal agreed apart from the relegation proposal.BCCI also given Centraal leadership of world cricket officially:haha: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=308462
Old guy Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Are u really happy for more ipl? I mean seriously?
G_B_ Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 the bcci should be happy with this. in general i am.
Asim Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Congrats BCCI and Indian Cricket BCCI Fans...!!!
Old guy Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 How is getting most of money from associates good? That's all I wanna know
cowboysfan Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 How is getting most of money from associates good? That's all I wanna know Bcci has decided that spreading the game of cricket around the world is not in their best interest.
SLICKR392 Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 the bcci should be happy with this. in general i am. Count me in. LOL @ buying PCB. Wasn't even required.
GoldenSun Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Well the BCCI agents on this forum should be partying all night :cantstop:. Good on ya blokes!
Old guy Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Bcci has decided that spreading the game of cricket around the world is not in their best interest. They are making international cricket a private league Good on them :two_thumbs_up:
BeautifulGame Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Are u really happy for more ipl? I mean seriously? 100% yes.Where have i stated otherwise ? I want IPL for atleast four months with matches only on weekends so that most fans can attend.
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