ECB, BCCI and CA to control cricket in future.

First topic message reminder :

Having read that the "big three" are proposing a "take over" of sorts of the ICC, I ave a number of questions.

Firstly let me admit I have no clue how the aiZcC is run, how they earn revenue (apart from ICC events) or how each member nation contributes financially to thr ICC.

Some questions.

I am told that the BCCI brings in 80% of the revenue of the ICC. How?

Is the BCCI therefor more powerful than the ICC as recent events showed where the SA tour was basically dictated by the BCCI?

How much control does the ICC really have nad how is it that tours can be changed at a whim if one of the "powerful" three decide something doesn't suit them?

Some observations.

Over the recent past I have seen some things happen that makes me believe that Cricket as a sport is in decline due to these power struggles and D...measuring contests.

I amy be wrong so please feel free to educate me. The BCCI had an issue with Lorgat from SA being appointed to CSA board, and in turn they got peeved off for some reason about CSA releasing the tour schedule "prematurely"

This brought along a shortened test series (I heard also that Tendulkar's retirement test in India had some effect on the tour) which by all accounts must have been a big financial loss for SA.

I also heard that CSA was trying to hasten a quick test series against Pakistan prior to the India series and the BCCI had something to say about that as well.

The Sri lanka series earlier in the year which was supposed to be a test series for SA was also cancelled in favour of a few ODI's.

Since becoming number one in Tests, it at least seems to me that SA cricket has been thrown curveballs for some unknown reason.

The Proteas only played 9 trsts this year and when you consider they were supposed to play another 4 tests at least this year, I am getting the idea that South African cricket is being undermined.

More questions.

If I understand all this correctly, once the BCCI, CA and the ECB take control, there will also be tiers, whcih will have a promotion relegation system, however the three "big" unions will be exempt of being relegated?

I also read that the BcCI and other two are suggesting that revenue (which is still a mystery to me) will be split in accordance with their contribution to the IcC and therefor the other cricket boards will most likely go bankrupt over this.

How is this in the best interest of all the other countries?

Do these big three realise without all the other countries interest and repetitive competition between these three nations only will come to a stand still if all the other members decide to pull away and start up their own board?

Can anyone clarify some of these issues as I am trying to understand what is happening and the consequences of it?

Thanks.

alfie wrote:Mike , I like many - not all - of your ideas a lot more than I do what I have heard of the "new plan" ...or indeed the status quo.

But do you honestly believe any of them have a hope in hades of being adopted in the foreseeable future ?  With or without petitions from independently minded cricket lovers ?  Because if you do I think you are perhaps guilty of a touch of naivety yourself...
Unfortunately it is a fact of life that big money tends to talk louder than ethical considerations.  So whatever comes of these proposals I am not holding my breath for any brilliant overhaul of the system that will result in a markedly better outcome for all.  I am just hoping it doesn't wreck the game completely.  And maybe in time we will see some improvements.

Alfie, I am sure you don't want to approach or the way it is governed the way you came across in this post. But sadly, it is a realistic post, and I just don't know how to disagree with that.
As Mike said, the ICC has changed a few things due to public pressure. But for the public pressure to effectively take shape, there has to be an issue that the general public feel connected to. I don't think most of us here have much of an idea about the revenue sharing model with which the ICC works at the moment or the nature of the proposed changes. The 'No Relegation' clause could be the only issue to base a public opposition, and I think the Big 3 will drop that idea as the negotiations start.
So at this stage, all that we can hope is that they don't go ahead and completely ruin the game we love.......

They need an extraordinary majority to carry the proposal, 8 of the 10 full members will have to support it. CSA is already opposed to it, and signs from BCB are also on similar lines.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/712385.html

The SLC wants the ICC to postpone the discussions on the draft proposal to a future date. They are also not comfortable with some of the suggestions in there. The West Indies Players Association calls it an attempt at a hostile takeover and wants the WICB to oppose the same.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/712371.html

Here is more confirmation on what the BCCI really wants. They want the 21 % revenue share, everything else seems to be negotiable.
http://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/india-flexible-on-two-tier-system-but-bigger-share-of-pie-non-negotiable/

Pakistan will almost certainly oppose it, as it seems will South Africa. It's then up to Bangladesh or Zimbabwe really...
My suspicion is they will drop the proposal quietly and try to force through some sort of financial proposal (it should be pointed out that with less creative accounting, under the current proposal the big 3 would actually take out more than they put in...).

As for alfie asking which if any of my proposals are realistic? Clearly it is overall more of a longterm plan, but there are some elements there which should be realisable in the short to medium term.
In particular giving test cricket a better context has come up in the current proposals, and I think we will see 2 divisions of test cricket in the not-too-distant future. Similarly day-night test cricket will happen at some stage.
The T20 WC is already a 16 team affair. What we need is the next T20 WC to be great, a really good showing by the 4 associates at the next 50 over world cup (preferably also by the two other than Ireland and Afghanistan) and a really boring, drawn out super 8 stage (which is practically a given). That may be enough to overturn the ICC's plans for the 2019 event, or certainly if the 2019 event is a flop (which, given the proposed format, is almost inevitable) people may say "hang on, we can do better, hey T20 IS doing better"...
Governance and finance of course depend on less corrupt people being in charge of their individual boards. For that, we could do with a really big scandal. It is possible, but will need a stroke of luck. Or a legal challenge on the way the ICC (read the full members) have completely ignored the report they commissioned (without due process).

Well give them 21%, but they can't rule.

Why don;t they just simplify matters and say we want 20% Hell, does it have to be so complicated.

Looks like Bangledesh are ready to sign their life away as the BCB voted 20-3 in favour of the proposal. Seems very odd that an association readily wants to become a Tier 2 nation (essentially an associate) and play Intercontinental Cup which will bring less profile for sponsorship etc. Read the link below
http://www.thedailystar.net/bcb-chooses-not-to-play-test-8181

Bangladesh become the first turkey to vote for Christmas (and in their case the proposed structure would mean relegation to the intercontinental cup, which is hardly going to increase revenue). The fans though are planning a protest.

The cricinfo report suggests that a majority of board directors were in favor of the proposal in informal consultations. And at the moment they seem rather confused more than anything else. They don't want to have the rath of the BCCI come down up on them as they think staying close to the BullyBoys might be in their best interest. Hope the passionate Bangladeshi cricket fans can stop the BCB on their tracks and induce a much needed course correction.

it's all about Srinivasan vendetta ....... a vendetta drive to teach SA a lesson for not listening to him.......and bringing on Lorgat.

Look at the twist/ turn scheming effrort he is going through.

If SA was to drop Lorgat and talk to Srinivasan ( humbly)...the club would so easily be expanded to accommodate the 4th member.

The man is a total disaster for sure. September can't come any quicker!.

There is more to it than just that, but it seems that the vendetta may well be the undoing of the proposal, because SA aren't without a bit of clout of their own.

Seems like Sriv's ego has overreached itself this time. Good, but scary to think that had the big 3 been made a big 4 from the start we probably wouldn't have even heard about this before it being announced as policy...

Mike Selig wrote:There is more to it than just that, but it seems that the vendetta may well be the undoing of the proposal, because SA aren't without a bit of clout of their own.

Seems like Sriv's ego has overreached itself this time. Good, but scary to think that had the big 3 been made a big 4 from the start we probably wouldn't have even heard about this before it being announced as policy...

 
 
--SA's biggest possible allies have been bought into the club...and srinivasan is giving up severeal pounds of his flesh...to buy their loyalty.
 
--all that he wants for India is 20%...when India is reportedly generating 80% revenues ? 
what was India getting before this "radically devisive" proposal was tabled ?? Atleast 10% possibly 15%
all these twists and turns and charade for only 5% ??
and a super economic power in cricket like India really cares for the extra 5 to 10% of ICC's revenues ??
 
and what control did BCCI did not have that he wants now.....he was in control anyway.
 
naah...the lion's share in increase must be going to the other two.....to standy and mutedly watch the exclusion of SA
 
--recently in India the sponsorship of BCCI was given throuhg a "rigged" auction to Espn-Star..... for half the price compared to Sahara's.
Because Sahara had offended the pride of Srinivasan by challenging him publicly during the fixing scandal and on some IPL rights that Mumbai businessmen had and Sahar wasn't getting.
To seek his revenge srinivsan sacrificed half his revenues......to keep Sahara out.
Ditto story of ICL...he wasn't the BCCI chief but on good terms with Pawar lobby then and was instrumentsal in ruthlessly not only crushing ICL......but getting after everyone associated with it to teach them a lesson until some / many of them begged for clemency and then the "generous" BCCI pardoned them.
 
--those who know him.....would tell you nothing drives Srinivasan more then revenge.
If you oppose him...better kill him...else he will come back to get you.
 
--Eng and Aus are biggest beneficiaries of this drive to teach SA a lesson.
and he is a great planner.....if he wasn't 100% certain of winning this he wouldn't bring it up publicly.
 
--Lanka is indebted to India for crushin Tamil rebels and they do as told by India in all / every aspect of life...BD has no balls...Pak will be( or may already have been) offered a money making series or two in UAE with India...will all fall in line....and WI doesn't exist as a country...just money making IPL contrcat seeking individuals, Zim would be happy to vote whoever can comitt 3months salary for their players( a few hundred thousand).......Aus has been tasked with managing NZ
 
--SA will be publicly isolated and "taught a lesson"...and the only two countries with clout that could have stopped have been "won " throuhg a lion's share of proceed.
 
It's a sad yet fascinating manifestation of how a brilliant mind with a distorted ego driven by his megalomania can turn the world around....and sadly how Aus and Eng have fallen to fascilitate this charade for more than thirty pieces of silver thouhg.

Not sure its that simple, but think KPF has more than a point or 2 here. The BCCI seems to be willing to offer a few games with Pakistan, perhaps the Pak players will be back in the IPL this year. BCB appears very confused and ZC hasn't responded. NZC is already going in with the proposal and thinks that its not really bad for the game. In that context, its a bit of a surprise that the SLC is asking for a postponement at least.......

msp83 wrote:Not sure its that simple, but think KPF has more than a point or 2 here. The BCCI seems to be willing to offer a few games with Pakistan, perhaps the Pak players will be back in the IPL this year.

 
The day after their fantastic chase in UAE...I met Younis Khan in the business class check and lounges area of the Dubai airport..congratulated him and and chatted with him for a long time.
he was pleasantly surprised that an Indian recognized him and wanted to take pictures with him ( see below).
He introduced me to Shaan Masood who was helping ( read carrying bags for Younis) and immediately rushed at merely Younis' eye contact to take our pictures   
younis in return praised Shaan lavishly and explained he was the best budding opening batsman in Pak.
 
Younis told me they have been told a series with India is in discussion and nearly firm. I told him a lot of Indians wish to see Pak palyers in IPL.....he sighed and blamed it on politics...ain't gonna happen he explaiend so close to the Indian elections and if BJP wins...no way at all.
 

There is no doubt South Africa is being taught a lesson here.

But this is where CSA must now learn to stand on their own feet financially and stick one up their noses.

Cant believe you met my favorite current batsman, KPf... I don't like you much right now.

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:Not sure its that simple, but think KPF has more than a point or 2 here. The BCCI seems to be willing to offer a few games with Pakistan, perhaps the Pak players will be back in the IPL this year.

 
The day after their fantastic chase in UAE...I met Younis Khan in the business class check and lounges area of the Dubai airport..congratulated him and and chatted with him for a long time.
he was pleasantly surprised that an Indian recognized him and wanted to take pictures with him ( see below).
He introduced me to Shaan Masood who was helping ( read carrying bags for Younis) and immediately rushed at merely Younis' eye contact to take our pictures   
younis in return praised Shaan lavishly and explained he was the best budding opening batsman in Pak.
 
Younis told me they have been told a series with India is in discussion and nearly firm. I told him a lot of Indians wish to see Pak palyers in IPL.....he sighed and blamed it on politics...ain't gonna happen he explaiend so close to the Indian elections and if BJP wins...no way at all.
 

That would have been an interesting engagement KPF.
Anyways, it appears that the possibilities of an India Pak series is been hyped up as something significant by Srinivasan and co. Lets see how the drama evolvs. But at this stage, all that one can do is , as alfie said, just hope that the game wouldn't be ruined a great deal at the end of the day.......

KP_fan wrote:
 
--all that he wants for India is 20%...when India is reportedly generating 80% revenues ? 

Can we drop the 80% nonsense? It is 80% of less than half, and includes a fair chunk of revenue from the world cup, which even the most creative accountant would struggle to claim as "revenue from India".

KP_fan wrote:what was India getting before this "radically devisive" proposal was tabled ?? Atleast 10% possibly 15%

About 4-5% by the ICC calculations actually (although it is 4-5% of an entirely different pot than the supposed 80% they were putting in, so it isn't as simple as saying "India put in x, and take out y" as per my earlier posts which I'm sure you read).

 

KP_fan wrote:naah...the lion's share in increase must be going to the other two.....to standy and mutedly watch the exclusion of SA

Wrong. The proposed document gives the same increase proportionally to all 3 (which means in absolute terms India stands to get more, because their share was bigger to start with).
 

KP_fan wrote:if he [Sriv] wasn't 100% certain of winning this he wouldn't bring it up publicly.

Except he didn't bring it up publicly. In fact he, Giles and Wally were rather hoping it would stay entirely private until passed. By all accounts they are a bit miffed that it has been leaked, precisely because it has brought public scrutiny to the proposals. Which in turn allows people to correct the inaccuracies others (e.g. as per above) are portraying.

The rest of your post is however hard to fault.

Here is cricinfo Sharda Ugra on the proposal.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/712599.html

Mike Selig wrote: 

KP_fan wrote:naah...the lion's share in increase must be going to the other two.....to standy and mutedly watch the exclusion of SA

Wrong. The proposed document gives the same increase proportionally to all 3 (which means in absolute terms India stands to get more, because their share was bigger to start with).

[/quote]

Sorry, this is incorrect.

The system is very complicated, so to simplify somewhat.

Currently India receives in a direct grant from the ICC the same amount as the other full members, which is 7.5% of the monies given out under direct grants. Under proposals in the position paper, assuming the same revenue as currently India would receive roughly 3 times as much as England, 4 times as much as Aus and 6-10 times as much as other full members. As the revenue increases, India, Aus and England's proportion of the revenue increases at the same rate (so in absolute terms, India's share increases more than the other 2); the other board's proportion increases a lot less, or for the non full members not at all. That is, any surplus of revenue (that is, any more revenue than currently) is distributed almost totally between the big 3. Worth baring in mind that when they say "under these proposals the ICC's revenue will increase" what they are actually saying is "under these proposals the ICC's revenue will increase, and we will take all that increase for ourselves".

Apologies for the error and confusion.

Bangladesh skipper Mushfiqur Rahim launched a blistering attack on the new proposal that would have demoted Bangladesh in effect and deprived them off test cricket. The BCB has also openely declared that while they are open to discussing the financial matters in the proposal, they would oppose the 2 tier system.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/712831.html

no suprise that Bangladesh have already voted, im pretty sure they would have been bribed...also a strong rumour going round, that India have attempted to bribe pakistan for a vote.

Can't be Cf - we'd have already voted in their favour by now!

More sane and important voices are joining in condemning the proposal.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/712935.html

Yeah, read that. I wonder how much power the BCCI really has. I also wonder how much revenue the BCCI will get if they had no international opponents.

And I wonder if the Proteas will ever play test cricket against India again.

well Lorgat wouldn't be able to attend the ICC meeting to discuss this issue

http://www.iol.co.za/sport/cricket/lorgat-frozen-out-of-icc-meeting-1.1636837#.UuUURRA1jrc

Lorgat frozen out of ICC meeting

January 25 2014 at 02:48pm
By Stuart Hess
Comment on this story
Haroon_Lorgat
AP
Cricket South Africa chief executive Haroon Lorgat has been frozen out of ICC business and it comes at a convenient time for those trying to take over the game.
Related Stories

Sascoc slam CSA over BCCI debacle

Johannesburg – Haroon Lorgat will be in Dubai at the same time as next week’s much-anticipated and crucial International Cricket Council (ICC) meetings over the future of the sport’s administration, but cannot play any part in deliberations owing to restrictions placed on him by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

Instead of their chief executive, Cricket South Africa will be represented by chief financial officer Naasei Appiah, while CSA president Chris Nenzani was expected to leave on Saturday ahead of the two-day meeting of the ICC Board starting on Tuesday.

Lorgat is understood to be engaged in meetings until Thursday while in Dubai, though the nature of those talks (or who they’re with) is not clear.

Under the terms of an agreement reached last year with the BCCI to ensure that India toured South Africa, Lorgat is not supposed to engage in any meetings of the ICC’s Chief Executive Committee, pending the outcome of an inquiry into his conduct.

That inquiry relates to Lorgat’s role in a letter made public by the ICC’s former legal advisor, David Becker, three months ago in which he outlines the weakness of the ICC’s administration while also pointing out the danger of the BCCI’s dominance in the game.

Though the agreement concerning Lorgat’s withdrawal from ICC matters was reached in October, it is understood that the inquiry will only comence sometime in the next fortnight.

The meetings taking place in Dubai are critical to the future administrative structure of the ICC in light of proposals made by the sport’s three wealthiest boards – the England and Wales Cricket Board, Cricket Australia and the BCCI.

Those proposals, contained in a “draft document” that was suddenly handed to the ICC’s full members at a meeting on the ninth of this month, includes the drawing up of a new two-tier competition for Tests (in which India, Australia and England are exempted from relegation), a new funding model for the redistribution of ICC revenue – with the BCCI slated to gain the largest piece of that revenue pie – a new leadership committee to contain senior representatives of all three boards on a permanent basis, and for the abolishment of the Future Tours Programme.

Cricket SA remain the only full member to have publicly called for the proposals to be withdrawn, describing them as “fundamentally flawed”, and being “in breach of the ICC Constitution”.

The only modicum of support for CSA’s stance has come from the Federation of International Cricketers’ Association, whose head, Paul Marsh, described certain elements contained in the proposals as “disturbing”.

On Thursday, the BCCI, following a meeting of their working committee in Chennai, unsurprisingly came out in support of the proposals and even went as far as to authorise their office bearers to “enter into agreements with the ICC for participating in the ICC events and host ICC events, subject to the proposals being approved in the ICC Board”.

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=96568

No holding back...the kind of honest comments you expect from Arjuna Ranatunga.

Here is Tony Cozier's take.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/713019.html

a sensible write-up by Sambit Bal on CI

No revolution at hand for cricket
The BCCI believes that cricket cannot survive without India. The other boards have given it no reason to think otherwise
Sambit Bal


Virat Kohli and Suresh Raina hold the World Cup, while Sreesanth holds the Indian flag, India v Sri Lanka, final, World Cup 2011, Mumbai, April 2, 2011
India's presence in World Cups naturally boosts finances, but the prestigious nature of the event also benefits India © AFP
Enlarge

Teams: Australia | England | India
Sites: Cricinfo ICC Site
After a week of brinksmanship, shadow battles, spinning and venting, cricket administrators will face cold reality in the ICC board room in Dubai. They will be confronted with the chilly resolve of the BCCI to claim what it deems its rightful share of global cricket revenue. And standing alongside will be the old powers, the cricket boards of England and Australia, eager to re-establish their hold on the game. For the rest, it will be a moment of truth: what are they more willing to sacrifice, cash or control?

The BCCI can be accused of many things, but not, in this case at least, of subterfuge. Either it doesn't care about its public image, or doesn't know how to build one. It employs neither media managers nor spin masters. So stories about how this makeover plan - which casts the BCCI, the ECB and CA as the governors and the top earners in the global game - is really about the game's welfare haven't emerged from the Indian camp. The BCCI's message to the rest of the world is transparent and unequivocal: Indian cricket helps generate the highest percentage of wealth in world cricket, and it's about time we were given a bigger chunk of it.

Last week, the working committee, the decision-making group at least in name, of cricket's mightiest organisation, met in a plush hotel in Chennai, the home town of N Srinivasan, the board's president. A personal tragedy kept Srinivasan away, but the group was given a presentation on the draft proposal by Sundar Raman, the IPL CEO and a member of the working group that drew up the draft. From some accounts, not many understood or bothered to understand the complexities of the draft. But the language of money is the simplest to grasp. The mood was upbeat. More money for the BCCI meant more money to each association. Some wanted to know why they were settling for so little if Indian cricket's contribution, as the draft outlined, was 80% of ICC's revenue. The proposal was heartily endorsed.

Among those present was Jagmohan Dalmiya, a man the present treats with indifference but whom history will remember as the one who not only won the BCCI the big chair at the ICC table but also saved the ICC from bankruptcy. Dalmiya never forgets to remind his fellow troupers at the BCCI about the struggle he and his colleagues had to wage to win the ICC presidency, and of the days when the more powerful boards demanded guarantee money to tour India. The question of whether this new proposal is right or wrong for world cricket doesn't enter the equation for the BCCI. The mood is that this is our time, and if what's due isn't granted to us, we will find a way to get it.

It is a position of such unflinching clarity that it brooks no moral argument. On pure commercial principles, it is difficult to dismiss. The number can be argued against; perhaps more supporting documents will be provided to demonstrate how the 80% figure was arrived at, but if it is simply extrapolated from sponsorship money that comes from Indian corporates for ICC events, it would be disingenuous, because a simple assumption cannot be made that all investment from India will disappear without the Indian team, or that the interests of Indian fans are exclusively rooted in the Indian national team.



Too many boards around the world have become lazy, inefficient and simply reliant on the ICC dole and Indian munificence. Cricket was much stronger in the '90s, when there was much less money

The argument can also be made that ICC events are mutually enhancing: India's participation boosts the commercial value of these events considerably, but the profiles of these events are also boosted by being global events that produce world champions. For that very reason, the value of India in the World Cup is greater than the value of India in the Asia Cup; India v Australia is more valuable than India v Zimbabwe. Context, stage, and quality of contest matter even in purely commercial terms.

Still, the commercial value of global events will be hugely depleted without India, and it is cricket's biggest problem that its finances are so reliant on one country. The football World Cup will lose a bit of magic if Brazil don't figure, but the value of broadcast rights will not be halved if Brazil fail to qualify. And also, since most of the boards balance their budgets on Indian tours, they are hardly in a position to isolate India.

It is galling from the FTP point of view that India have never invited Bangladesh for a tour in 13 years. For the Bangladesh Cricket Board, what really matters is that India toured the country multiple times in the last FTP cycle. A rough calculation will show that India have been generous travellers and are owed matches by most teams. The bottom line is that other boards make money when India travel.

Among all the proposals, proportional distribution of wealth will be the biggest non-negotiable for the BCCI. There will be room for accommodation when it comes to the formula of promotion and relegation and its most abominable clause - immunity for India, England and Australia - and also regarding the formation of the Executive Committee. On the matter of bilateral tours, too, the BCCI is willing to commit to contractual obligations with all nine Full Members, including Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. In return, it has a simple capitalist message to its trading partners: we can spread more wealth by making more ourselves; the more money we make, the better off you are.

Of course there are strong moral and logical arguments against this, and most of those have already been lucidly and forcefully made on this website. It can be argued that the proposal enriches the board that least requires enrichment; that the dangers of the La Liga model, which awards more money to FC Barcelona and Real Madrid, is evident in the fact that it is the most uncompetitive major football league, and even there, every team plays the same number of matches; that even the BCCI follows the equal-distribution model for all its state associations and IPL franchises.

Most crucial of all, despite the use of the word "meritocracy" several times in the document, the model for revenue distribution is merely linked to revenue potential from each market, which is not necessarily dependent on the quality of the team or the efficiency of the administration. It simply does not take into account the merit displayed on the cricket field, which in the language of business would translate to "quality of the product".

Great teams and great players enhance the appeal of the game, and by extension provide better value to broadcasters. West Indies were the most sought after team in the late '70s and the '80s simply because they were the best to watch. A truly meritocratic system would reward excellence, and a team like New Zealand, with a fraction of the player base that India has, should have the opportunity to earn more money by beating higher-ranked teams.

The reverse is true too. Too many boards around the world have become lazy, inefficient and simply reliant on the ICC dole and Indian munificence. Cricket was much stronger in the '90s, when there was much less money. Zimbabwe were competitive, Sri Lanka won the World Cup, Pakistan were sensational, West Indies were still competitive, and Bangladesh held promise. It can be argued that most of these teams have declined despite being financially better off. Any system that makes them more accountable is welcome. But this proposal is about consolidation of power, not accountability.

That cricket needs a shake-up is beyond dispute. In drafting this document in stealth, and in assuming they are the fittest to rule and awarding themselves a major chunk of the projected earnings, the Big Three haven't shown themselves to be model leaders, but they may be owed a round of thanks if this draft paper stirs the entire cricket world into action.

However, I am not holding my breath. The cricket world has always been governed by self-interest and expedience. Compromise is easier than confrontation. South Africa are leading the resistance simply because they have been left out of the main table. It is improbable that they would have refused an invitation had it been extended. The voices that have railed against the proposal have nothing to lose. The boards will weigh their risks and cut their deals. The decision will perhaps be delayed and the draft tweaked in some ways.

But that will be that. A revolution is not at hand.

My Prediction: Draft will be passed unanimously in Dubai in a few days   

Not sure why you are happy about it. This will mean the demise of professional cricket in SA, the BCCI has decided they will bully CSA into submission, we will play even less test cricket than we do now and the money will completely disappear which will mean our best players will likely play IPL, BBL and County cricket to make a living.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

The financial model is wrong, I understand that, but it is wrong for two reasons. Firstly the fact that all bilateral series revenue goes to the ICC.

The old boys way of collecting revenue in a clique run by Australia, India and England is antiquated to say the least.

Each country should earn their own revenue directly from broadcasting, gate money, merchandising and sponsorship, the ICC trophy tournament revenues should be split and the ICC should be competent enough to run cricket in a manner where standards are set whereby each top tier nation plays the same number of tests against each other.

where on earth does it make sense that top tier teams decide who they will play on the basis of revenue potential, that is the tail wagging the dog, not the dog wagging the tail.

Sadly the ICC is as poorly run as some of the national cricket boards

Biltong wrote:Not sure why you are happy about it.

Happy is not the emotion but rather the word tragicomic applies here....indeed if it is passed unanimously.

msp83 wrote:Here is Tony Cozier's take.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/713019.html

And a good article it is, too...it shows how absolutely spineless the WICB is.

Zimbabwe Cricket are looking for a loan to help them resume domestic cricket. Can't happen with the backing of the BullyBoys, so that could be one potential supporter down for the CSA.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/zimbabwe/content/current/story/713315.html

west indies have now agreed to this ridiclous proposal!

Breaking News!

PCB, CSA, BCB and Sri Lanka Cricket board are opposed to the proposals.

ARTICLE on CRICINFO

How long till India suddenly changes its stance on Zimbabwes politics and status then?

BCB? Bangladesh?

they're onboard, its already agreed!

I can't be particularly optimistic about that article TBH. When all the countries supposedly opposing the plans are simply saying "we will vote in our interests" then you know it won't take much for them to back the proposals.

Even South Africa are only making so much noise because they have been deliberately left out in the cold on this (IMO that may still prove to be the miscalculation which brings the whole thing crashing down).

The directors who sit on the ICC board(s) should have the interests of the global picture at heart, rather than just that of their own countries. They should be representing the ICC rather than their board. They should be declaring conflict of interest when it arrises.

All this is standard practice in any reasonably run company/governing body. It was a clear and key recommendation of the Woolf review which the ICC called and has since completely ignored.

I expect the proposal to be watered down (the 2 tier version of test cricket will be dropped, the ExCo modified a little), but we as cricket fans mustn't stop there; until cricket fundamentally changes the way it is run, it will remain much the poorer and stuck in its ways.

The good thing to come from this (always look for positives) is that it has brought right into the open shady practices (e.g. the way this whole thing was drawn up) which long-time critics of the ICC have known about, but the general public has not; it has put in stark detail the way that ALL the big boards care only about their own interests, and have no wish to grow the game at all; it has seen international condemnation (at the moment centered around Ehsan Mani's fantastic detailed analysis) and brought the Woolf review back into focus. We mustn't waste all this.

The proposals will be watered down to accommodate the feelings of Bangladesh, and Pakistan might get a few games against India in the UAE. Sri Lanka might get to host the iPL this year, and the BullyBoys should be fine. The 2 tier system was brought in only to be taken out to end the protests in a way that might look dignified for the losing side.
Are there any possible legal way out of the mess. I think that's the only thing that can work.

The more I look at it, the more I wonder how a two-tier eight nation system could possibly work. Past the ten permanent nations, the remaining six would ostensibly have no first class system to speak of If. Can't see how the standard of cricket improves - instead, it just leaves the problem hidden and ignored... Brilliant.

kingraf wrote:The more I look at it, the more I wonder how a two-tier eight nation system could possibly work. Past the ten permanent nations, the remaining six would ostensibly have no first class system to speak of If. Can't see how the standard of cricket improves - instead, it just leaves the problem hidden and ignored... Brilliant.

Who wants to improve the standard of cricket!? Ignore, that's what this is all about.

Mike Selig wrote:

... The directors who sit on the ICC board(s) should have the interests of the global picture at heart, rather than just that of their own countries. They should be representing the ICC rather than their board. They should be declaring conflict of interest when it arrises.

All this is standard practice in any reasonably run company/governing body. It was a clear and key recommendation of the Woolf review which the ICC called and has since completely ignored.

...

Not suggesting it would be straightforward or cheap but I do think there is the making of a legal challenge there ....

as expected unanimously agreed


First day of ICC Board meeting concludes with unanimous support for key principles.

The first day of the International Cricket Council's Board meetings concluded in Dubai today with unanimous support for a set of principles relating to the future structure, governance and financial models of the ICC.

The ICC Board unanimously supported the following principles:

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.
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) will be introduced to encourage and support Test match cricket.
A larger percentage from the increasing Associate Members' surplus will be distributed to the higher performing non-Full Members.
Mutually agreed bi-lateral FTP Agreements which will be legally binding and bankable and will run for the same period as the ICC commercial rights cycle (2015-2023).
Recognition of the need for strong leadership of the ICC, involving leading Members, which will involve BCCI taking a central leadership responsibility.
A need to recognise the varying contribution of Full Members to the value of ICC events through the payment of 'contribution costs'.
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. Anybody from within the Board can be elected to Chair the Board and anybody from within ExCo and F&CA can be elected to Chair those Committees. With the ICC undergoing a transitional period that includes a new governance structure and media rights cycle, this leadership will be provided for two years from June 2014 by: a BCCI representative to Chair the ICC Board, a CA representative to Chair the ExCo and an ECB representative to Chair the F&CA.
A new company will be incorporated to tender future commercial rights for ICC events. There will be three major ICC events in each four-year cycle, including the ICC Champions Trophy which will replace the ICC World Test Championship.
ICC will utilise a more efficient operating model for all ICC events, with a simplified accounting model across ICC income and expenditure to help better manage ICC administrative and event costs.
ICC President Alan Isaac said: "This is an important time for world cricket and it is extremely encouraging that the ICC Board has unanimously supported a set of far-reaching principles that will underpin the long-term prosperity of the global game.

"These principles emphasise the primacy of Test cricket and that for the first time in cricket's history participation will be based entirely on meritocracy, giving everyone powerful incentives to play better cricket and develop better cricketers.

"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."

Mr Isaac also expressed his disappointment with the misconceptions that had been created as a result of a draft position paper produced by three ICC Members being leaked.

"Several months ago I encouraged BCCI, CA and ECB to enter into a constructive dialogue together to help resolve some of the key commercial and governance issues facing the game. These leading cricket nations have worked tirelessly to produce a document which provided the basis for the past few weeks of extremely constructive discussions.

"It is obviously very disappointing that a draft position paper from these Members was leaked as this prompted a debate that ignored the ongoing negotiations between all Members and led to unwarranted criticism of many of those involved in the process.

"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."

David Richardson, the ICC Chief Executive, added: "An enormous amount of effort has gone into developing a comprehensive set of proposals that include input from all Members.

"The Board has held some very constructive, inclusive, wide-ranging and far-reaching discussions and I am looking forward to bringing to fruition some of the principles that have been proposed and accepted in relation to the cricketing structures of the global game."

"Recognition of the need for strong leadership of the ICC, involving leading Members, which will involve BCCI taking a central leadership responsibility.
A need to recognise the varying contribution of Full Members to the value of ICC events through the payment of 'contribution costs'."

That says it all...this is a sad day for cricket in countries outside India, England and Australia....

As expected the proposal itself was quietly dropped. What was drawn up was a series of principles (the word is meaningless) which allowed everyone to save face.

Should those principles of course be implemented then it is little else than the coup which has been advertised, so we need to keep the fight.

Alan Isaacs is amazing, he really is. Not in a good way.

I await with little hope any official response to the genuinely informed and argued criticism of these proposals.
I await with even less hope any kind of response to the Woolf review.

Perhaps it will need a legal challenge and a complete split in world cricket for some people to wake up.

In the meantime, back to the campaign trail.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

... The directors who sit on the ICC board(s) should have the interests of the global picture at heart, rather than just that of their own countries. They should be representing the ICC rather than their board. They should be declaring conflict of interest when it arrises.

All this is standard practice in any reasonably run company/governing body. It was a clear and key recommendation of the Woolf review which the ICC called and has since completely ignored.

...

Not suggesting it would be straightforward or cheap but I do think there is the making of a legal challenge there ....

Indeed. The code of ethics (which the BCCI doesn't believe in, but everyone has signed up to nevertheless) states:
“Directors shall at all times serve the interests of the ICC and the sport of cricket as a whole. Directors shall not promote their own (or a group of) Cricket Board’s interests at the expense of the dignity, integrity or interests of the ICC or of the sport of cricket in general.”

How you square that with the (now ex-)proposal being drawn up... and whether you consider these board members to have satisfied their fiduciary duties...

Alan Isaac is a joke of a president!. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/713627.html

shivfan wrote:"Recognition of the need for strong leadership of the ICC, involving leading Members, which will involve BCCI taking a central leadership responsibility.
A need to recognise the varying contribution of Full Members to the value of ICC events through the payment of 'contribution costs'."

That says it all...this is a sad day for cricket in countries outside India, England and Australia....

It's all unanimously agreed. So no one should complain....because the members themselves have no complains.
It seemed like a more a media stirred storm in a tea-cup