Srinivasan emerges favourite for ICC role

[cricketrulez]

57 minutes ago, CG said:

We have to understand money is not a problem for Bcci and if you expect few million dollars more will help change Indian cricket facilities you will are mistaken .Its all for personal grudges.If sc implements even some of proposal and professionalism comes to Bcci and state associations where the most rampant corruption occurs I am all for it.

So you get to decide how much money BCCI should make? SC should stick to matters of law. Anything more interference into the business side of cricket, that should be treated as political interference.

 

Someone should remind SC to get the country being secular in its truest sense before dictating BCCI how to run its operations.

[CG]

So you get to decide how much money BCCI should make? SC should stick to matters of law. Anything more interference into the business side of cricket, that should be treated as political interference.

 

Someone should remind SC to get the country being secular in its truest sense before dictating BCCI how to run its operations.

They can,t do shit against sc.In the end its rule of the land .May be u get share of Bcci Bounty I don't so I don't care how much they make.

[BeautifulGame]

Not that hard to believe when Manohar has openly come against current amount of money BCCI gets  from ICC and has vowed to dismantle it. In the mean time idiotic SC is doings it best to reduce revenue from tests and ODI in bilaterals.

 

IF Srini gets in and fixes this, I'm all for it.

Manohar is a loser and needs to chased.

Please tell us what has SC done to reduce the revenue from tests and ODIs?

[BeautifulGame]

Regarding telecast quality in India its pathetic with ads between balls sometimes and broadcast quality is nowhere compared to England and aus.as fans we deserve better

Even if it meant Bcci losing revenue.

Not really true and blown way out of proportion imo

Particularly now that every match is being available in HD .The quality has been excellent and when u compare what we pay compared with subscription costs for sky in England it's ridiculously low .

[CG]

Not really true and blown way out of proportion imo

Particularly now that every match is being available in HD .The quality has been excellent and when u compare what we pay compared with subscription costs for sky in England it's ridiculously low .

First of all the ui used in broadcast is horrendous ,secondly their is like of tools like super slow Mo ,Hotspot ,Graphs which do increase user experience and quality of commentators least said the better .

[Vilander]

14 hours ago, cricketrulez said:

1) why must there be socialist angle? It is not like ICC is one country.

2) This did not come into play until BCCI became a financial powerhouse. Why wasn;t there a push for this before that?

3) Currently, after the reorg, BCCI gets 22% of the surplus whole it contributes close to 70+ % of total revenue. Why do you deem that unfair?

yup the details will be negotiated i guess, but all i am saying it it wont be a clean 70+%..share of profits.

[Vilander]

10 hours ago, gakgupta said:

Does this mean, Indian cricket has to bear with the misery called dhoni??

I think Srini likes Dhoni a lot ( may be sees an ideal son in him), it visible from their bonhomie.

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/photo/41035734.cms

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BeautifulGame]

First of all the ui used in broadcast is horrendous ,secondly their is like of tools like super slow Mo ,Hotspot ,Graphs which do increase user experience and quality of commentators least said the better .

These are individual views that differ from person to person .I mean no one ever even notices these UI differences lol.

Also I always find Star set of commentators far better than anything channel nine cheer leaders for ex.And Star provide commentators comm in vareity of languages which are often better than English .So these views completely differ on individual perceptions and doesn't really matter for the initial criticism of quality of telecasting .

As I said getting all the sports subscription cost £2 per month in India.It probably costs around £50 in England for sky subscription.

[CG]

These are individual views that differ from person to person .I mean no one ever even notices these UI differences lol.

Also I always find Star set of commentators far better than anything channel nine cheer leaders for ex.And Star provide commentators comm in vareity of languages which are often better than English .So these views completely differ on individual perceptions and doesn't really matter for the initial criticism of quality of telecasting .

As I said getting all the sports subscription cost £2 per month in India.It probably costs around £50 in England for sky subscription.

It matters when u get used to certain standards.Even tensports have better quality broadcasts.

Star set of commentators are pathetic to say the least not one except Shastri or gavaskar know what commentators are for.They are basically cheerleaders for Indian batsman and statsgurus .Rather than description of the game they would be busy talking about stats.

In todays age which sports broadcasts does not even have Hawkeye

[CG]

It matters when u get used to certain standards.Even tensports have better quality broadcasts.

Star set of commentators are pathetic to say the least not one except Shastri or gavaskar know what commentators are for.They are basically cheerleaders for Indian batsman and statsgurus .Rather than description of the game they would be busy talking about stats.

In todays age which sports broadcasts does not even have Hawkeye

Monthly sky sports cost 15 pounds.

[BeautifulGame]

It matters when u get used to certain standards.Even tensports have better quality broadcasts.

Star set of commentators are pathetic to say the least not one except Shastri or gavaskar know what commentators are for.They are basically cheerleaders for Indian batsman and statsgurus .Rather than description of the game they would be busy talking about stats.

Basically that's the commentators of every country .Both the England and Australian commentators do the same .English is slightly better and Aussies are far worse.

Can take Sunny anyday over having to put up with Healy or Botham.

Anyway as I said star provide better alternatives in comm in different languages as well.None of these English or Aussie comm come anyway near the quality of commentary I get in Tamil.Should they be judged based on that .But as I said these are individual options not on the quality of production .

The quality of the production and telecasting in India have come leaps And bounds in the last few years .Star has produced high quality HD games for TNPL an inter state tournament.Can u show sky doing anything remotely similar quality ?And again I repeat it all these for nearly 1/25th of the cost .

As for Ten , they are comfortably the worst production house for any sports for me .Their Champions league pre game shows are ameturish to say the least .

But the initial point was about cutting in between overs and low quality production which isn't true and blown way out of proportion.Thats why even SC has rejected .

[CG]

Sky sports all channels monthly package cost 30 pounds .But even other channels provide better experience even tensports so money is not the point.

[CG]

Basically that's the commentators of every country .Both the England and Australian commentators do the same .English is slightly better and Aussies are far worse.

Can take Sunny anyday over having to put up with Healy or Botham.

Anyway as I said star provide better alternatives in comm in different languages as well.None of these English or Aussie comm come anyway near the quality of commentary I get in Tamil.Should they be judged based on that .But as I said these are individual options not on the quality of production .

The quality of the production and telecasting in India have come leaps And bounds in the last few years .Star has produced high quality HD games for TNPL an inter state tournament.Can u show sky doing anything remotely similar quality ?And again I repeat it all these for nearly 1/25th of the cost .

As for Ten , they are comfortably the worst production house for any sports for me .Their Champions league pre game shows are ameturish to say the least .

But the initial point was about cutting in between overs and low quality production which isn't true and blown way out of proportion.Thats why even SC has rejected .

Yes commentary is personal choice may be regional commentary is good buy Hindi and English commentary is low standard.people like Sunny and vvs who do not have much fluency in Hindi are used for some reason.Also even if channel nine and skysports commies are biased they are not stats mad like Sanjay or particular player cheerleaders.

Also they trying to show unbiased views demean players particularly bowlers.

[BeautifulGame]

Monthly sky sports cost 15 pounds.

I am sure some of our resident UK fans can clarify but when I checked their website it's £47 per month

http://www.sky.com/shop/tv/sports/

If it's just £15 pretty sure moth would have subscribed to sky football coverage than complaining about it being not on free to air I think

[BeautifulGame]

If u feel ten sports sports coverage is better than Star then it just shows how different one's views on quality is , so better to leave this as it is.

[CG]

I am sure some of our resident UK fans can clarify but when I checked their website it's £47 per month

http://www.sky.com/shop/tv/sports/

If it's just £15 pretty sure moth would have subscribed to sky football coverage than complaining about it being not on free to air I think

I think that may be for whole package.Even though if ten sports and set Max can get latest technology why should star not match Same standard.

[BeautifulGame]

I think that may be for whole package.Even though if ten sports and set Max can get latest technology why should star not match Same standard.

You do realize that the £2 pound I said covers every sports channel in India not just star in moth Dth providers .

That's my point.The subscription costs are way too low and beneficial to fans .I would rather have than pay £50 so that I can watch super slow mo tbh .

Also I really don't what latest technology that Sony or Ten has that star doesn't

[G_B_]

better the devil you know

 

will back Srini

[CG]

You do realize that the £2 pound I said covers every sports channel in India not just star in moth Dth providers .

That's my point.The subscription costs are way too low and beneficial to fans .I would rather have than pay £50 so that I can watch super slow mo tbh .

Also I really don't what latest technology that Sony or Ten has that star doesn't

That's your opinion.As I said if at same cost other networks provide better services and Star is getting much more ad revenue from cricket which subsidies the cost.They have to improve the standard.Also why compare sky even channel nine and Evey other network even in zimhas Hawkeye ,Its just that they do not care for fans as there is no competition.

Channel 9 is free to air and its quality surpasses even sky.Fact is Bcci did not make star adhere to quality .