BCCI and its members: Do Maharashtra and Gujrat really get 80% of BCCI money? How do 11 states get no funds from BCCI in last 5 years?

[sandeep]

Unsubstantiated Insinuations taken as gospel, because it fits a pre-existing confirmation bias.  80% your hairy dingle-berry ____

[Malcolm Merlyn]

if this is true then its damning, 80% for Maharastra and Guj, when the whole country feeds into it ?? no wonder SC went ape shiz on them now.

 

Its not true.I am still waiting for@trichromatic to furnish a credible source.

[Vilander]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Unsubstantiated Insinuations taken as gospel, because it fits a pre-existing confirmation bias.  80% your hairy dingle-berry ____

but even if it is say >20% the argument will come back.  

[sandeep]

5 minutes ago, Vilander said:

but even if it is say >20% the argument will come back.  

Nobody's claiming BCCI $$ distributions are super equitable, but the rampant hate on Bombay is a bit much.  I'm not going to agree with MM's justification of limiting revenue for "smaller" states - that's not good and should be addressed.  But BCCI has enough revenue that it doesn't need to screw over Bombay to fund Bihar etc.  Two wrongs never make a right.  

[Vilander]

excerpt from article quoted.

 

A senior BCCI member from East Zone told The Hindu that he liked a majority of the Lodha Committee recommendations in the “reforms in cricket” report. When asked to be specific, he said: “Equality and the removal of the apartheid policy, and transparency. In what way is Tamil Nadu’s contribution to Indian cricket less than others or for that matter Karnataka or Delhi or Punjab? But these two States received only one subvention and IPL money, whereas Maharashtra and Gujarat got six times over. And the two States had seven votes, taking the CCI into account.”

 

interesting. The annual reports in BCCI website does not provide any info on subvention breakup between associations, considering it to be more or less equitable between the members there should be no angst, Maharastra and Guj just have more players so gets more. But if it is skewed abnormally towards them then no clear info on it exists probably.

 

http://www.bcci.tv/about/2015/bcci-annual-reports

 

[Vilander]

25 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Nobody's claiming BCCI $$ distributions are super equitable, but the rampant hate on Bombay is a bit much.  I'm not going to agree with MM's justification of limiting revenue for "smaller" states - that's not good and should be addressed.  But BCCI has enough revenue that it doesn't need to screw over Bombay to fund Bihar etc.  Two wrongs never make a right.  

its a bit like India vs the cricketing world. But the credence to India vs world comes in because of two attributes. 

 

1, India has more fans than rest of world and they generate 70 -80% of revenue. This cant be said of Mumbai/Guj can we say they generat 80% of BCCI revenue when there are equally huge markets in KA/TN/Bengal/NCR/Punjab hell even Kerala had an IPL following for some time.

 

2, BCCI share of grants was quoted as close to 22% not 80%. Unless we get real numbers for share of Maharastra/Gujarat we wont know for sure.

 

Its not Mumbai hate really, its a natural reaction justified.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Vilander

[Vilander]

3 hours ago, Lannister said:

SC did a good job by kicking out all the low life parasites. There was no end to them, doing whatever the hell they want. We need to abolish all the additional sub associations present with in the states. 

its a bit surprising there could be this much gap between the states in terms of fundings. How does KA,Jarkhand,Bengal and TN even manage to compete it what is surprising.