BCCI, CA, ECB seek ICC revamp: BCB caves in, 1 vote away

[BeautifulGame]

However much we pound our fists and rightly rail against the brazen conspiracy between Australia, England and India to effectively hijack international cricket, the West Indies Cricket Board is obliged to accept a galling reality. As with most things, it has to do with money. The triumvirate's aim is to become the ICC's supreme rulers. As such, they will make the crucial decisions. The Future Tours Programme (FTP) will be scrapped in favour of bilateral arrangements for tours, and two-division Test cricket introduced, with promotion and demotion - from which last those three teams will be exempt. They will redistribute, on a more proportionate basis, the ICC's annual revenue, to which India currently contributes 80%. The rich getting richer, the poor poorer. The main points in the relevant 21-page document are common knowledge. They are to be put before the ICC's quarterly meeting in Dubai next week. The WICB's position was settled after a couple of directors' teleconferences last week. It is to be formally presented by the president, Dave Cameron, in Dubai. The board's only official statement was that it would be "in the best interest of West Indies cricket". Baldath Mahabir, the Trinidad and Tobago director on the WICB, expressed his doubts in a newspaper interview last week, while stressing that his opinions were strictly personal. "Any time you have a situation where people are looking to divide and rule, it could never be good," he said. "Looking at the proposals, this is a situation where power-broking and sharing will go to three of the members and this cannot be healthy." Others have spoken out more strongly and officially. Cricket South Africa, whose team is top of the list in the Test rankings but whose dealings with the BCCI have become increasingly fractious, charged that the plans are "in breach of the ICC constitution". Paul Marsh, chairman of the FICA, which covers players of seven of the ten Full Member boards, said his organisation has "real fears that it will only serve to strengthen the Big Three countries whilst the rest are left to wither on the vine". Former ICC president Ehsan Mani, of Pakistan, accused the three of "completely undermining the integrity and standing of the ICC". The current vice-president, Mustafa Kamal, of Bangladesh, made his doubts known. There is undeniably substance to such concerns, but it would be a courageous president to tell the superpowers, especially India, that the WICB rejects their intended takeover; such preference for principle over practicality carries potentially damaging repercussions. The financial value of relations with India was never more obvious to West Indies than during India's involvement in the triangular ODI tournament in the Caribbean last year. The teams contested the Celkon Mobile Cup, presented by a Hyderabad-based manufacturer of mobile phones. It, and a host of other Indian products and services, household names in the subcontinent but unheard of on this side of the planet, filled the ground perimeter advertising boards. They were there because live coverage of the matches was transmitted back to India by Ten Sports, the Dubai-based Indian production company that won the rights to international cricket in the Caribbean in 2012. It was a financial coup for the WICB, whose treasury was accordingly boosted. The scheduled FTP series of two Tests and five ODIs against Sri Lanka it replaced would have operated at a loss, as did the five ODIs and two T20s against Pakistan that immediately followed. The WICB's hurried revision of its international schedule to fit in two Tests in India that ensured Sachin Tendulkar's emotional farewell in his homeland rather than in South Africa, further fortified the rapport. As the BCCI has made plain, it will rapidly sour should the WICB oppose the triumvirate's proposals. It is a certainty seemingly recognised by "an overwhelming majority" of the Bangladesh board's directors, who, according to a report on ESPNcricinfo, favour siding with the BCCI or otherwise "will be cornered", a phrase applicable to the WICB. The BCCI has done nothing to soften its image as the bully boy of the game. After a meeting on Thursday, it maintained that the submission to be presented on Tuesday and Wednesday was "in the interests of cricket at large", warning at the same time that its rejection would jeopardise India's participation in and hosting of future ICC events (such as the World Cup, men's and women's, the World Twenty20, and the Under-19 World Cup) . It's a big call and there are some who might be inclined to call the BCCI's bluff on this one. While both England and Australia gave commitment to bilateral agreements with eight Full Members, India did not. The absence of such a guarantee worries the WICB and other weaker boards, who depend on visits from India, with their advertisers, sponsors and television pull, to bolster their treasuries. For West Indies, perhaps the most ominous point in the proposals is that "no member should be forced to host uneconomic tours". "Uneconomic" is a term that has come to be associated with a team consistently languishing in the bottom half of the ICC's Test and ODI standings for nearly 20 years. It represents a bewildering turnaround from the eras when West Indies cricket ruled the world, when they were the strongest, most envied and most popular, when the major countries couldn't get enough of teams led by Frank Worrell and Clive Lloyd. The previous seven-year interludes between tours of England were reduced to four following Worrell's memorable 1963 series. Those led by Lloyd, and then Viv Richards, visited Australia for four Test tours in the 1980s. Worrell's tyros attracted 90,800 spectators to the Saturday of the Melbourne Cricket Ground in the last match of the 1960-61 series, which began with Test cricket's first tie. Just as many were estimated to have been present at Calcutta's Eden Gardens for a day on the 1966-67 tour under Garry Sobers. For 15 years, between 1980 and 1995, West Indies never lost a series. The change has been depressingly dramatic. In the 21st century, West Indies have managed two wins against England's 17, one against Australia's 17, and two against India's nine. The blackwashes of the 1980s have been replaced by washes of several different hues the other way round. Such rapid deterioration has been brought on by weak administrations and infighting with a militant players' union that led to three strikes; by poor planning; by a continuous turnover of captains and coaches; by inferior pitches - and by much else besides. Former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe's take on two-tiered Test cricket in regard to West Indies and New Zealand is that it is "disrespectful and ignores the great history that has built up over a century or more". Such sentimentality is foreign to the businessmen, bankers and assorted types who now manage the game strictly on the dictates of the financial bottom line. The upshot is that, come Tuesday and Wednesday in Dubai, the WICB, even against its principles, will support the radical makeover put forward by Australia, England and India. It couldn't have happened 30 years ago.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/713019.html

[G_B_]

so we have India-Aus-England NZ and WI on board. Zim and BD need to be flipped. I have gained a lot of respect for the WICB in recent times. Yes their test team is not that good but they have managed to win the T20 WC. and Last decade picked up the champions trophy. So every decade they are picking something up. Compared to say teams like NZ (who have not won any major comp for 16 years) and Sri Lanka (18 years). They have something to show for it. Even the CPL, i thought was conducted professionally. A series and contest i for one enjoyed. It also ensures that many cricketers in the WI can make a decent living out of the sport. In total there were about 100 players from the WI who benefited from it.

[Asim]

Mani slams 'Big Three' proposal; Speed, Gray join Mani's protest

Mani slams 'Big Three' proposal

Ehsan Mani delivers his address at the ICC Centenary History Conference, Oxford, July 22, 2009

Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president, has delivered a stinging critique of the finance and governance draft proposal put forward by the boards of India, Australia and England, declaring the document should be subject to independent review. He charged the BCCI, CA and ECB with "completely undermining the integrity and standing of the ICC". Describing the process by which the proposal was drawn up in secret and then presented to the other Full Member nations as an indicator of "serious weaknesses in ICC's governance", Mani raised numerous concerns about the proposal itself, particularly its financial modelling for the next eight years and assumptions about how much money an individual board or country is worth to the game as a revenue-raiser. He also implored the ICC's executive board to look again towards the Woolf Report, the 2012 independent review of ICC governance that was largely ignored after the BCCI rejected its recommendations, many of which have been contradicted by the new proposal. "The Paper raises serious governance issues including lack of transparency and conflict of interest," Mani wrote in a 13-page statement about the proposal. "The authors of the Paper (BCCI, ECB and CA) benefit significantly in financial terms from their proposals and promote their own self-interests. Ehsan Mani, the former ICC president, has delivered a stinging critique of the finance and governance draft proposal put forward by the boards of India, Australia and England, declaring the document should be subject to independent review. He charged the BCCI, CA and ECB with "completely undermining the integrity and standing of the ICC". Describing the process by which the proposal was drawn up in secret and then presented to the other Full Member nations as an indicator of "serious weaknesses in ICC's governance", Mani raised numerous concerns about the proposal itself, particularly its financial modelling for the next eight years and assumptions about how much money an individual board or country is worth to the game as a revenue-raiser. He also implored the ICC's executive board to look again towards the Woolf Report, the 2012 independent review of ICC governance that was largely ignored after the BCCI rejected its recommendations, many of which have been contradicted by the new proposal. "The Paper raises serious governance issues including lack of transparency and conflict of interest," Mani wrote in a 13-page statement about the proposal. "The authors of the Paper (BCCI, ECB and CA) benefit significantly in financial terms from their proposals and promote their own self-interests. "BCCI, ECB and CA say in the Paper that they will provide greater leadership and stability to the ICC and its Members. In return they ask the Members to hand over powers of the ICC Board to them. They do not demonstrate how they will do this in any meaningful way. They do, however, plan to make significant financial gains for themselves and completely control the workings of the ICC to the exclusion of the other members. "The Position Paper of the Working Group should be withdrawn and referred to an external independent panel to review and comment on. BCCI, CA and ECB should have no part in this process or subsequent discussion on this matter as they are clearly conflicted." Mani, who served as ICC president from 2003 to 2006 after beginning his involvement with cricket's governing body in 1989, was aggrieved by the manner in which the proposal was drawn up by the BCCI, CA and ECB, and then sprung on the rest of the Full Members with the demand that it be voted on almost immediately. "The Directors, President, Chief Executive and management of the ICC have had no role and input in, or knowledge of the preparation of the Paper even though it comes from a working group of the ICC Finance & Commercial Affairs Committee," Mani wrote. "It also appears that some members of the F&CA Committee were not invited to join in the discussions leading to the Paper and were not even aware of the discussions taking place. "Full Members were summoned to a meeting in Dubai on 9 January 2014 and presented with this Paper. From all accounts it appears that the President and the Full Member directors of the ICC had no prior knowledge of the contents of the Paper and the President had no role in convening the meeting; he was 'invited' to the meeting by the BCCI, ECB and CA although it was a meeting of the F&CA working party of his Board. No Associate or Affiliate member director was invited to the meeting. "The Three Boards have completely undermined the integrity and standing of the ICC, its President and the Board of Directors in promoting their own agenda without due and proper discussion by the Board. Clearly, the right standard of Boardroom behaviour is not seen to be in place." Looking closely at the new financial order suggested by the proposal, Mani took serious issue with the premise on which it has been based. "The [revenue distribution] proposal put forward in the Paper is fundamentally flawed," he wrote. "It assumes that the members have proprietary interest in the money their countries' economies generate for ICC events. The fact is that broadcasters buy cricket rights because it appeals to their customers, drives subscriptions and advertising revenues. "Similarly, sponsors use cricket to promote their goods and services. While the values are generally greater when the broadcaster's country is playing, not all of this can be attributed to the individual country's Board. The quality of the opposition has a great bearing on the value Boards receive for their media rights. A strong case could be made that the broadcast revenues for bilateral home and away series between two members should be pooled and shared equally. "While there would be a significant reduction in the value of the ICC Commercial Rights if India did not participate in an event; it would not be a reduction of 80% of ICC revenues. The Indian broadcasters would still wish to broadcast ICC Events. There would be a relatively greater impact, than the values attributed to Pakistan, South Africa and West Indies in the Paper if these three countries did not participate in an ICC event. From discussions with broadcasters, if a World Cup was held without Pakistan, South Africa and West Indies ICC revenues for the event could be reduced by 30%-40%." Mani's background in chartered accounting and corporate governance, via numerous board directorships, served him well at the ICC, when he took a major role in growing television revenue through his post as the head of the ICC's Finance and Marketing Committee from 1996 to 2002. He is a known advocate for growing the game into new markets such as the United States and China. The proposal, which is believed to have undergone some minor adjustments since its draft version was reported on, has been lodged with ICC executive board members and will be debated and voted upon at their next meeting on January 28-29. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/712711.html

Speed, Gray join Mani's protest

Malcolm Speed has remained linked to Cricket Australia even after leaving his post as ICC chief's executive in 2008

Malcolm Speed and Malcolm Gray, both former senior administrators with Cricket Australia and the ICC, have broken away from their national board's position by undersigning a formal letter to the ICC and member nations requesting that the "big three" proposal be immediately withdrawn. The letter, composed by the former ICC president Ehsan Mani in the wake of his damning 13-page assessment of the draft finance and governance proposal that is due to be voted on by the ICC's executive board this week, is also undersigned by the former West Indian captain Clive Lloyd and former PCB presidents Shahrayar Khan and Lt Gen. (retd) Tauqir Zia and former BCB president Saber Hossain Chowdhury. Ali Bacher, the former managing director of the first South African board after reunification, also came out in support of the argument being made by Mani. In a letter to Alan Isaac, the current president of the ICC, Bacher reminded him of the "animosity" that existed particularly in the Asian subcontinent and the Caribbean, when England and Australia had the veto in the ICC. He said that the working group position paper, if accepted, would "lead to division and strife in world cricket as never seen before." * But it is the presence of Speed and Gray on the letter that is most significant, for each have remained linked to the workings and decisions of CA in the years since they left formal administrative posts. Speed still retains a close working relationship with the CA chief executive James Sutherland under the banner of the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS). He was also a member of the Argus review panel that charted a new path for the Australian team in 2011. All signatories agreed that the ICC needed to re-examine the conclusions of the 2012 Woolf Report into ICC governance, which recommended, among other things, an improvement in governance standards, the appointment of independent board directors and greater transparency. The text of the letter reads: "We are writing to ask you, the custodians of world cricket: 1. That the Paper by the ICC F&CA Committee should be withdrawn. 2. That the ICC directors and management, its members and other stakeholders are, as a matter of urgency, invited to review and comment on the Governance Report by Lord Woolf and PWC, published in 2012, with a view to implementing its recommendations and improving ICC's Governance structure, in keeping with contemporary best practice." Following a long period in senior roles with CA when it was known as the Australian Cricket Board, Gray served as president of the ICC from 2000 to 2003, when he was succeeded by Mani. Speed was the chief executive of the ACB/CA from 1997 until 2001, then served the same role with the ICC from 2001 to 2008. He told ESPNcricinfo that he trusted the motives of the CA chairman Wally Edwards, but held grave doubts about the redistribution model the proposal outlined. "I have no doubt that Wally Edwards has given the matter very close consideration and believes that this is the best outcome for world cricket," Speed said. "Wally has been in the thick of the debate and I respect his opinion and have no doubt that he is acting in the best interests of the game and Australian cricket. "I cannot see any reason whatsoever why India should receive extra funding from ICC Events at the expense of struggling countries such as Scotland, Ireland, Uganda, Kenya and the other 100 Associate and Affiliate members where every dollar counts. India generates hundreds of millions from domestic and international media and sponsorship rights from matches played against the other Full Member countries. "India already benefits more than any other country from the popularity of the game in India and India's huge population. It receives this revenue as a result of playing against the other countries. The rationale for ICC Events is to raise funds to support the game across the world. All of the other members need additional funding. Previous Presidents of BCCI were strong supporters of the other countries. Jagmohan Dalmiya as BCCI and ICC President was a pioneer in spreading cricket's revenues around the cricket world. BCCI needs to reconsider its position." The letter was accompanied by Mani's analysis of the proposal, which raised many and varied concerns about the conflicted interests of its authors - the BCCI, CA, and the ECB - and the revenue modelling they are suggesting. Among his reservations was the fact that under the new plan, the game's developing nations stood to lose an enormous percentage of projected revenue, relative to their current allocation. Mani estimated that under the proposal, Associate and Affiliate Members would lose more than US $312 million in projected revenue, an amount that would instead be redistributed largely to the boards of India, Australia and England. "The biggest gainers are BCCI, ECB and CA. In addition, ICC events for the period 2015-2023 will be held only in India, England and Australia. These Boards will receive hosting fees for the events in addition to the ICC Distributions they propose," Mani wrote. "A point that also needs to be addressed is; why does BCCI need more money at the expense of other countries? The domestic and international media fees that BCCI receives from playing with other members are massive and underpin BCCI's financial position. It is the richest cricket board in the world. "If cricket is to grow and develop around the world more investment is required in the Associate & Affiliate countries, not less. The Associate & Affiliate countries represent some of the biggest economies in the world. If cricket could be established properly in the United States of America and China and become an Olympic sport, the ICC could double its revenues in real terms over the next 10-15 years. This requires vision and a less parochial approach." http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/712935.html

[bulbul]

losers :hehe:

[Zap_Brannigan]

"I cannot see any reason whatsoever why India should receive extra funding from ICC Events at the expense of struggling countries such as Scotland, Ireland, Uganda, Kenya and the other 100 Associate and Affiliate members where every dollar counts. India generates hundreds of millions from domestic and international media and sponsorship rights from matches played against the other Full Member countries. the game's developing nations stood to lose an enormous percentage of projected revenue, relative to their current allocation. "If cricket is to grow and develop around the world more investment is required in the Associate & Affiliate countries, not less. The Associate & Affiliate countries represent some of the biggest economies in the world. If cricket could be established properly in the United States of America and China and become an Olympic sport, the ICC could double its revenues in real terms over the next 10-15 years. This requires vision and a less parochial approach."

Completely false. It is the 75%-25% breakdown that is preventing Scotland, Ireland, Uganda, Kenya and the other 100 Associate and Affiliate members from getting more and the main culprits who take up all the money from these nations are New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, BD and Zim. Give the associate nations more percentage. The draft only wants to take away from nations like NZ,SL,Pak,BD, Zim where cricket is already developed or have been funded for a long time and hasnt developed due to incompetency/Corruption.

"The biggest gainers are BCCI, ECB and CA. In addition, ICC events for the period 2015-2023 will be held only in India, England and Australia. These Boards will receive hosting fees for the events in addition to the ICC Distributions they propose," Mani wrote. "A point that also needs to be addressed is; why does BCCI need more money at the expense of other countries? The domestic and international media fees that BCCI receives from playing with other members are massive and underpin BCCI's financial position. It is the richest cricket board in the world.

The biggest gainers are BCCI, only because they have been the biggest loser up until now. why does BCCI need more money? Why do you? Why were you paid thousands of dollars for your job? What an idiotic question. It doesnt matter whether it needs it, what matters is that it earned it. I dont know if this guy knows about basic principle of supply and demand. Indian cricket team has enormous demand and hence bring home the most money. If a India Vz NZ tour gets sold for 30 million $, while a India Vs SL gets sold for 35 million $, while a NZ Vs SL is sold for 3 million $, then it is pretty evident that india is the common factor that brings in the demand. Sure a Pak Vs Aus brings may bring in 10 million but a India Vs Aus will bring in 50 million $. It just means that Australias demand is higher than that of SL and NZ. The top 10 bilateral series in terms of revenue will have atleast 8 India tours.

"While there would be a significant reduction in the value of the ICC Commercial Rights if India did not participate in an event; it would not be a reduction of 80% of ICC revenues. The Indian broadcasters would still wish to broadcast ICC Events. There would be a relatively greater impact, than the values attributed to Pakistan, South Africa and West Indies in the Paper if these three countries did not participate in an ICC event. From discussions with broadcasters, if a World Cup was held without Pakistan, South Africa and West Indies ICC revenues for the event could be reduced by 30%-40%."

Got to be a big joke. The only reason the WC would be devalued by 30-40% ( if its that high) is because a WC with just 5 teams wouldnt feel like a WC and not because of these teams. On the other hand, If India, Eng and Aus pull out, there wouldnt even be a WC. Does he even know why ICC changed the format of the World cup in 2011? Or why they played morning games in 2007 WC? Does he also really think that BCCI, if out of the ICC, will just sit there twiddling their thumbs like he did when he was working for the ICC? Consolidating power into 3 boards is bad, just like consolidating power to the 9 boards right now ( which has kept Ireland out to keep their share of the ICC pot). But BCCI getting more ICC revenue or cancelling FTP is absolutely fair.

[putrevus]

Speed is a racist idiot who thought he was bigger BCCI. Mani is fricking joker who got that ICC president due to BCCI so now these clowns have something to say, yeah right.

[Gollum]

Speed is a racist idiot who thought he was bigger BCCI. Mani is fricking joker who got that ICC president due to BCCI so now these clowns have something to say, yeah right.

100% agree. These ppl have 0 credibility.

[G_B_]

stupid analysis like the BCCI is going to sit back and let the ICC events function without having their own matches (IPL or v anybody else). Those sponcers are simply going to jump ship. Take for example Reliance. With no ICC events BCCI are going to expand the IPL teams to 16 and let Reliance own one of them. Clearly Reliance are going to pull out of the ICC events and focus their money on their own franchise (Anil Ambani faction) the basic assumption is that the BCCI will pull out of ICC events and then sit back. That is flawed logic. Just like the crushed the ICL the BCCI will be proactive in their approach and have India or IPL games at a time when the ICC events are being scheduled. The bottomline is that if the BCCI does not get its way its not going to sit back. There will be back up plans. They will schedule something for the Indian fans to watch. Not only that, a lot of Indians in the UK for example subscribe to Sky sports primarily to watch India play cricket. I am not going to buy the package to an ICC event. If i am interested there are plenty of private links.

[jf1gp_1]

Dale steyn gets 1.2 million per IPL season. Hanuma Vihari his sunrisers teammate gets 30 - 40k. In 2014 both are expected to play all the games so at the end of IPL Steyn should shares his salary with Vihari cause cricket is a team game.

[KeyboardWarrior]

They are jokers or not, i dont care. BCCI wants his fair share, its fine , give them. but controlling Cricket wont good for the Game itself. we care about Cricket, and if this happens, Cricket will die. Instead of making it Global we are going to destroy it. whether you agree or not, we all know whats going to happend in the end of the day. but few people wont understand it. my personal opinion is that if this happens thn pakistan should back out his team, becoz after the "Big Three" domination, pakistan team have no future. before BCCI was controlling cricket in-directly, after this they will dictate everyone. RIP to the Game of Cricket...

[G_B_]

The thing with the ICC events is. I can understand just like Fifa is once every 4 years. In cricket its like every year there is a big ICC events which suck out 4 weeks of prime home time. How many fecking icc events do you want to play to subsidise the world?

[moniker]

How ironical it is that the most flawed part of this draft, the relegation clause, is hardly talked about but BCCI getting their share of the revenue will somehow destroy the game. Hypocrisy at its best.

[jf1gp_1]

They are jokers or not, i dont care. BCCI wants his fair share, its fine , give them. but controlling Cricket wont good for the Game itself. we care about Cricket, and if this happens, Cricket will die. Instead of making it Global we are going to destroy it. whether you agree or not, we all know whats going to happend in the end of the day. but few people wont understand it. my personal opinion is that if this happens thn pakistan should back out his team, becoz after the "Big Three" domination, pakistan team have no future. before BCCI was controlling cricket in-directly, after this they will dictate everyone. RIP to the Game of Cricket...

Why not let boards which actually make money run ICC. Cricket cannot survive with just 3 teams. Year long IPL wont work. Both BCCI and other 2 boards recognize it, SL,Pak, BD, WI, Zim are all in trouble whats wrong with someone who knows how to make money run it ?

[Asim]

On a lighter note Indian fans are behaving as if each of them gets $$$ share from BCCI... Com'on guys be CRICKET Fans, not BCCI fans...

[bulbul]

^ What PCB doesnt send you $$$$? :cantstop:

[BeautifulGame]

On a lighter note Indian fans are behaving as if each of them gets $$$ share from BCCI... Com'on guys be CRICKET Fans' date=' not BCCI fans...[/quote'] Ultimately it does benifit us though.Better cricket infrastructum better stadium facilities and stronger team. Also more IPL :yay:

[putrevus]

They are jokers or not, i dont care. BCCI wants his fair share, its fine , give them. but controlling Cricket wont good for the Game itself. we care about Cricket, and if this happens, Cricket will die. Instead of making it Global we are going to destroy it. whether you agree or not, we all know whats going to happend in the end of the day. but few people wont understand it. my personal opinion is that if this happens thn pakistan should back out his team, becoz after the "Big Three" domination, pakistan team have no future. before BCCI was controlling cricket in-directly, after this they will dictate everyone. RIP to the Game of Cricket...

Let us examine this rationally. Is BCCI preventing Pakistan from playing England or Australia or any other team for that matter, those teams dont want to play Pakistan because it is a loss for them on many fronts. PCB and bangladesh can play all the series they want no one is stopping them . PCB and Pakistanis were fine when controlled by England and Australia but it is only when BCCI comes into picture they get their egos hurt. How can PCB take money given to them due to BCCI by ICC and tell BCCI what to do ? If you were BCCI what would you do. Why should bcci/ICC support all the corruption of PCB by feeding it money. Same thing happens every April, we hear all kind of nonsense spouting from PCB and its players regarding IPL, playing in IPL is not a birthright but a privilege for Pakistanis .

[BeautifulGame]

They are jokers or not, i dont care. BCCI wants his fair share, its fine , give them. but controlling Cricket wont good for the Game itself. we care about Cricket, and if this happens, Cricket will die. Instead of making it Global we are going to destroy it. whether you agree or not, we all know whats going to happend in the end of the day. but few people wont understand it. my personal opinion is that if this happens thn pakistan should back out his team, becoz after the "Big Three" domination, pakistan team have no future. before BCCI was controlling cricket in-directly, after this they will dictate everyone. RIP to the Game of Cricket...

:hysterical: What global? After 130 years of cricket only Aus and Eng matches bring crowd for test match. So how many more years does ICC need to take it global?

[G_B_]

On a lighter note Indian fans are behaving as if each of them gets $$$ share from BCCI... Com'on guys be CRICKET Fans' date=' not BCCI fans...[/quote'] we believe the BCCI needs to invest more in infra around the country. There are huge sections of India without proper facilities. Its not as if Inda is a developed country and everybody has equal access to infra.

[Asim]

Ultimately it does benifit us though.Better cricket infrastructum better stadium facilities and stronger team. Also more IPL :yay:

we believe the BCCI needs to invest more in infra around the country. There are huge sections of India without proper facilities. Its not as if Inda is a developed country and everybody has equal access to infra.

Fine... Good for you!