1st Nail in BCCI Coffin:Cricket Scheduling on the cusp of reform : Test and ODI league to start from 2019

[BeautifulGame]

 

Quote

 

International cricket has brought itself to the cusp of a radical shake-up of its calendar after top executives agreed on proposals that provide more context for all three formats. If the ICC Board approves them, a two-year Test league, a 13-team ODI league, and a regional qualification process for the World T20 could be ushered in from 2019.

 

 

And as the strongest signal yet that the short-lived era of the Big Three is well and truly over, the overseeing of this calendar will once again become the responsibility of the ICC.

 

The proposal for each format is as follows:

Test cricket
Despite talk of a conference-style structure with 12 teams, the proposals call for a 9-3 league. That is, nine Full Members excluding Zimbabwe will play each other in Test series either home or away once over a two-year period, at the end of which there will be a play-off between the top two teams.

The duration of the series will be up to the members - even a one-off Test can be considered a series. The system of how points will be awarded, given that each series will not be of the same length, is yet to be worked out. The home and away stipulation is such that, if, for example, New Zealand tours Sri Lanka in the first two-year league cycle, then in the following one Sri Lanka will tour New Zealand. If one team refuses to play another - as has been the case with India playing Pakistan - they will forfeit points. Full Members will retain the power to schedule bilateral series should they wish outside of this league structure.

The details of how the bottom three teams operate within this league are still to be fully worked out. They will play against each other in what will be Test matches, but essentially outside of the league structure and with no points at stake. Administrators, however, are also working out a way for the nine Full Members play a series against at least one of the three in each cycle, to provide them with exposure and the opportunity to improve.  

Part of the reason this is not yet finalised is because it is linked to the question of membership status for Associate sides, which is on the agenda of the ICC Board meeting on Saturday. There is talk of decoupling Test status from Full Membership, so that a side - such as Afghanistan or Ireland - can play Tests without being Full Members.

At the end of a four-year period - of two cycles - the performances of these three teams will be assessed and it is here, presumably, where the Test ambitions of other Associate sides come into play. Performances there will be part of a criteria for Test status; another criterion is for countries to have a domestic first-class competition. Ireland's domestic competition was approved last year; Afghanistan's came up at the CEC meeting and it is believed it will also be granted first-class status. 

ODI cricket
A 13-team league will be played over three years, one series against each other on a home and away basis (because there are more teams involved, the cycle is longer). The 13 teams are likely to include the ten Full Members, Afghanistan and Ireland, and the winner of the World Cricket League. There will be a minimum of 12 ODIs in a year for every team (with no upper limit) and bilateral series can be of any number of matches.

At the end of the league period, the top-ranked side will be rewarded in some way. For the World Cup, the top seven sides plus the hosts will qualify automatically. The bottom five will play in a qualifying event along with an undecided number of Associate sides, from which two sides will go through to make up a ten-team World Cup.

Member nations can organise ODIs outside of this framework should they choose to and they will be given ODI status, but those matches will not carry points towards the league.

T20 cricket
In one sense, the most uncertainty remains over T20 international cricket, mostly because talks are still ongoing over whether two extra World T20s should be played in 2018 and 2022. That is what will determine the length of any cycle for the format.

 

 

Full details http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1080769.html

 

Finally ICC waking up in a sense.Both test cricket and ODIs in particular needed context for a long time tbh.Maybe now this can ignite interest interest in ODIs in countries outside India.It was disappointing to see Australia playing ODIs on empty grounds.With the way it was going not sure how long ODI cricket would have survived outside India.

 

Also great to see the likes of Ireland and Afganistan getting regular games in the scheduling.Hopefully they also get few tests to develop.Though not sure likely it will materialize.

 

One kick in the teeth is that if we refuse to play Pakistan,we will forfeit points.Though not sure how Govt refusal for permission will work .

 

All still needs to be passed in the board room level.And more importantly none of this changes will be implemented before 2019.

 

@Malcolm Merlyn 

Edited February 3, 2017 by BeautifulGame

[Malcolm Merlyn]

1st nail in BCCI coffin.Now ICC will decide which team will tour India and when.And when will India tour another country.We may be forced to play the Pakistani team.

Well done Supreme Court.

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

1st nail in BCCI coffin.Now ICC will decide which team will tour India and when.And when will India tour another country.We may be forced to play the Pakistani team.

Well done Supreme Court.

Don't look at everything through a negative prism.  Adding context for home and away tours is a necessary and over-due change.  Sure there are some negative consequences - the leverage created by points forfeiture is an instance - but so what.  BCCI needs to get its internal mess sorted out and get in on the negotiation.  These changes are inevitable, they can only be managed from being at the table.  No point in whining about it.

[BeautifulGame]

3 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

1st nail in BCCI coffin.Now ICC will decide which team will tour India and when.And when will India tour another country.We may be forced to play the Pakistani team.

Well done Supreme Court.

None of this will be implemented atleast till 2019.So we even if there is FTP scheduling ,the likelyhood of playing Pakistan wont arise till 2020-21.

 

Hardly something to fret about now.No one can predict the political situation 5 years from now let alone cricket situation.All we need t do is get get along for now ,get our house in order,wait for Manohar to finish his tenure, and then see how it goes 1-2 years down the line.Nothing is permanent in neither Politics or in ICC.

[maniac]

 keeping the political issues involved in playing Pak aside....purely from a cricketing perspective this makes more sense,giving bilaterals more meaning...so don't see this as a bad thing as a cricket fan.

 

It may limit the revenues for BCCI but at the end of the day a series in India or a series involving India will make more money anyways...so it is not like a total destruction of BCCI.

 

 

[maniac]

How does the revenue sharing work....so let us say an Ind-Aus series in India makes a million dollars and a Zim-Bangladesh series in Zimbabwe make a 100K,the profits for the most part are kept with the home board right?

 

Now if BCCI wants to go through the big 3 route and schedules games at it's own discretion,won't the interest die down eventually almost like killing a golden goose?

 

I fail to understand how this is killing BCCI @Malcolm Merlyn

 

Only problem I have with this is now we will lose a lot more refusing to pak

[Malcolm Merlyn]

How does the revenue sharing work....so let us say an Ind-Aus series in India makes a million dollars and a Zim-Bangladesh series in Zimbabwe make a 100K,the profits for the most part are kept with the home board right?

 

Now if BCCI wants to go through the big 3 route and schedules games at it's own discretion,won't the interest die down eventually almost like killing a golden goose?

 

I fail to understand how this is killing BCCI @Malcolm Merlyn

 

Only problem I have with this is now we will lose a lot more refusing to pak

Right now BCCI can decide which countrys to tour and when.Countrys which are friendly and vote for us get more tours.That will not be in the hands of BCCI anymore.Also we will be forced to tour countries at a time decided by the ICC even if that means affecting the IPL.

Which country will tour India and when will also be decided by the ICC now.

If we dont tour Pakistan we may be fined lose points.

This is only the start.This means BCCI lose its financial muscle.

[BeautifulGame]

Right now BCCI can decide which countrys to tour and when.Countrys which are friendly and vote for us get more tours.That will not be in the hands of BCCI anymore.Also we will be forced to tour countries at a time decided by the ICC even if that means affecting the IPL.

Which country will tour India and when will also be decided by the ICC now.

If we dont tour Pakistan we may be fined lose points.

This is only the start.This means BCCI lose its financial muscle.

Period and even duration [the number of fixtures ] are to be decided by individual boards .It's only the structure ICC will provide meaning context and points system.

Honestly don't think any of this work out in reality because of fixture congestions and test cricket being loss making .Can see at worst most teams just playing one off tests to avoid loss making tours

2019 is still long way to go.

[King Tendulkar]

Look ICC can put in place what they want . We won't play Pakistan if we don't want to and countries won't tour Pakistan if they don't want to.

 

now then in terms of plans here . Frankly bcci is loaded and will always be miles ahead money times . So girls stop crying if reveunue drops by small amounts . As if this means poor countries get more money and more finances that is great for world cricket . Countries like windies and Sri Lanka would be fantastic if they earn more and so can hold on to players from other leagues . Really fantastic news for cricket . I want to play windies test team full of their best players not like now .

 

also test cricket suffering . A league with meaning great stuff if works . We can always add on points lost by not playing pak tonne moral world champs if need be 

[moniker]

On 2/3/2017 at 10:58 AM, BeautifulGame said:

 

Full details http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1080769.html

 

Finally ICC waking up in a sense.Both test cricket and ODIs in particular needed context for a long time tbh.Maybe now this can ignite interest interest in ODIs in countries outside India.It was disappointing to see Australia playing ODIs on empty grounds.With the way it was going not sure how long ODI cricket would have survived outside India.

 

Also great to see the likes of Ireland and Afganistan getting regular games in the scheduling.Hopefully they also get few tests to develop.Though not sure likely it will materialize.

 

One kick in the teeth is that if we refuse to play Pakistan,we will forfeit points.Though not sure how Govt refusal for permission will work .

 

All still needs to be passed in the board room level.And more importantly none of this changes will be implemented before 2019.

 

@Malcolm Merlyn 

Do you really want India to play the same number of test and ODI series against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and West Indies as against Australia, England and South Africa? Too many meaningless series instead of series against competitive opposition isn't really going to add much context imo. 

[sandeep]

@Stumped 

 

The changes in ODI and test scheduling are for the better of the game - no argument there.  But how do you justify ECB's disproportionately higher share of the new revenue system?  What entitles England and Australia to 500 times (or actually a higher multiple) more money per domestic cricketer from the ICC than their Indian counterparts?  

 

Its all easy to bash BCCI and point to their bigger lump sum, but when you put the BCCI's share of the ICC revenue in context of the global game, suddenly the issue that's falsely framed as BCCI garnering a big chunk of the money looks like something else - Indian cricket being robbed to pay Giles, Tommy and Aussie Bob, with a few crumbs thrown to Habib, Jaques and Braithwaite.  

 

How many stadiums does BCCI run and maintain? what about the sheer number of domestic players that they support - let's not even talk about the fans who actually generate the actual revenue.  

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, Stumped said:

Before I start where are you getting this from out of interest? I'm under the impression that the Ranji Trophy has the most teams of any domestic tournament in India with a total of 27 correct?

Projected revenue shares were all over the media, and ECB share was barely 1/3 that of BCCI.  

 

Lets stick to numbers that cannot be disputed - population.  Uttar Pradesh Cricket association - one of the "27 teams" in Indian domestic represents 200 million citizens of that state - 3 times England's population if not more.  

 

So 1.3 billion people should make do with only 3 times the revenue than the cricket association for 50-60 million.  Even if those 1.3 billion are actually providing upwards of 70% of the revenue.  And if the said association does not accept this inequity, it is painted as a "bully" that is "selfish" and taking money away from the sport.  

 

Look, I don't want matters to turn into a slanging match, shouting "pro-India' points vs others.  But the news coverage on the revenue sharing issue is extremely unbalanced and one-sided.  All "responsible" media and cricket websites, newspapers etc are framing the question of downsizing India's share of the revenue as "right-minded" and correct, without any consideration of the other side's perspective.  

 

Its acceptable thinking for a layman to think that way - because there will always be very little sympathy for the 800 pound gorilla, and Indian cricket is the big boy on the block.  But questions have to be framed in the accurate context, before you start jumping to conclusions.  That's what differentiates proper legal process from a kangaroo court set up by kindergarteners. 

 

 

 

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, Stumped said:

By domestic cricketer I was assuming you meant a cricketer playing at a level referred to as 'domestic cricket' such as Ranji trophy, but perhaps I was wrong?

Let's not shift the goalposts or get pedantic.  The bottomline is that those attacking India's share of the ICC revenue are conveniently giving a pass to the likes of England and Australia.  Can you dispute the population numbers? Or the fact that majority of ICC revenue is actually generated from that population?  

[sandeep]

Just now, Stumped said:

Yet if we want to go really deep into the numbers why don't we compare the cost of living (and therefore presumably roughly how proportionate salaries should be), the cost of maintaining those stadiums in each country, the cost of running a small local club near a city etc.?

Sure - let's do that.  I have absolutely no qualms introducing purchasing power parity into the mix - its only fair.  Let's keep in mind that ticket prices, revenue etc are also earned by the local associations in the local currencies.    So when the Yorkshire ground sells season tickets it makes x pounds while the Wankhede stadium is going to make y rupees for the same.  

 

The problem is that, nobody has really gone deep into the numbers. The ICC has not released any numbers to justify the change.  Neither has the news media attempted to dive into the numbers.  Bottom line is that the new model, when you look past the false framing - is actually not about making world cricket more "fair".  Its a simple power grab to reduce India's share, while not doing the same to England/Australia or even NZ for that matter.  And these associations have made their case by simply taking a bigger chunk from Indian cricket and spreading a few crumbs around to the likes of WI, SL etc to win their votes.  

 

I am completely in support of the concept of progressive taxation.  Indian cricket makes a ton of money - in any currency - and a healthy chunk of that money should and must go towards world cricket as a whole.  But not to line the pockets of the ECB or CA - they can't claim poverty - those associations should also be taxed at similar rates.  Not hide behind the likes of Bangladesh or the Associates, pontificating about equity and fairness, while padding their accounts.  

 

 

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, Stumped said:

The irony of this was pointed out I believe in a cricinfo article published today. One of the biggest complaints when the big 3 financial model (which upped the BCCIs payout in particular) came into place was there was absolutely no transparency in it with no figures or calculations to back it up, claims which were simply ignored by the powers that be. Yesterday during the meeting the BCCI representatives biggest issue was the exact same thing, with him complaining that there was no transparency or calculations to back a change in the financial distribution structure. I'm sure even you've got to agree that's slightly humorous.

Humrous? Sure.  But that doesn't make it OK.  Do you not see the simple political power play that's going on?  These changes have nothing to do with fairness or equity.  The narrative that's been bandied about as conventional wisdom is - These changes are an improvement from the evil big three oligopoly.  The reality is, its a brilliant and opportunistic move by the "old" guard of the ICC - Eng/Oz to take advantage of the internal turmoil that the BCCI is dealing with - and the divisions in the Asian cricket bloc with the India-Pakistan tensions.  You think all of a sudden, Giles Clarke has found a love for Pakistan cricket and a burning desire to visit Lahore for some Chicken Tikka?  Please.  They smell an opportunity to "rent" PCB's vote.  Our Pakistani brothers are quite accustomed to being "bought" temporarily - I dont want to digress into non-cricket politics, but that's just the harsh and honest truth.  

 

Let's call a spade a spade.  This revenue re-structuring is a naked power grab.  Its an attempt by Giles and co. to gain power in the ICC at the expense of the BCCI.  And it is by no means a done deal.  I'm hoping that the BCCI babus get their act together and get to work.  They need to woo the usual suspects - West Indies and South Africa. If these 2 come around, the changes will fail.  

[sandeep]

20 minutes ago, Stumped said:

Also from figures I've seen I believe the ECB will also be losing a slight cut with CA keeping the same cut.

And that is my point.  Why a massive cut for only one of the "Evil" Big three?  Why CA keeps the same, and ECB has a nominal "slight"  cut?  Convenient isn't it.   

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, Stumped said:

I highly doubt Giles Clarke would even have to visit Pakistan to persuade the PCB that voting for a reported 50%+ increase in their ICC payout each year would be a sensible thing to do. As mentioned above, the reported figures also seem to suggest a 23% decrease in the ECBs payout.

Of course.  I'm just pointing out an example of the vote-wooing thats going on.  

 

Like I posted earlier - I am completely in favor of progressive taxation - concept of of the likes of India contributing a greater percentage towards world cricket than others - Exponentially more than the likes of WI, SL, Bangladesh etc.  Biggest problem I have is that the associates badly need more funding if the game is going to really put down some roots.  Some vision and investment in countries like Netherlands, Nepal, USA will pay off big-time down the road.  And the ICC is wasting time and opportunity.  

 

But nowhere in the new model, do I see an increase for associates, or new tournaments for them.  What I see is just a bunch of suits playing politics for their mutual benefit and portraying it as some kind of noble improvement.  Its a masterful spin narrative, which the inept BCCI is not able to counter, due to its institutional weakness and ineffeciencies, amplified by its current legal turmoil.