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.

My understanding is that nowadays nearly all revenue goes to the home team....

In the old days, revenue used to be split between the teams. If England wanted the Windies to tour, the Windies could hold out for a good fee. So, the WICB earned good money after Lara broke the world record, because they could then demand good touring fees.

When the ICC changed that rule, and gave all revenue to the home country, the WICB spiralled downwards into debt, because home series never earned much, in a region with a weak, poor media, and small population.

Ok, if that is the case, then it answer the question of earning revenue at home, which obviously means the sponsorship money, gate money and broadcasting money goes to the host nation.

In that case I can certainly understand that the indian population (if the matches are broadcasted on pay tv) brings a lot of revenue for cricket in India.

Do test series earnings from host nations have to be split with the ICC

I'd love to see CA and ECB do a big backflip and leave BCCI on their own on this one. They can play IPL amongst themselves if that's what they feel is important to their future. This will never affect fans from the other nations who want to see more variety in terms of participants and locations where the game is played. OK, that can be expensive (as it is) but surely we could group more matches together in certain places at certain times.

Now that would make things very interesting. That would take a lot of balls (so probably won't happen) and would no doubt result in less money for their own boards. By salvaging something similar to what exists now it would be better for the game in the long run and we could keep playing Tests - at least amongst the top 8 of the Full Members (probably Zimbabwe and Bangladesh would fall by the wayside, which isn't perfect or fair I know) and this would save some money in the short-medium term.

Most importantly, it would reinforce the principle that for a healthy, inclusive and more sustainable game (heading into the future) it is intended that cricket should be played by as many nations as possible as has been the case in the last couple of decades. I don't know if this exists in the current ICC 'modus operandi' promoting goodwill amongst other cricketing nations - if not it should; for certainly this selfish and short-sighted proposal could never claim to achieve that.

What I can't fully understand is that for the game to continue to flourish and reach bigger markets the opposite needs to occur. Not all at once of course... but in small steps. None of this grab the cash and run caper. Maybe England and Australia will have "go it alone" to fund a smaller pool of cricketing nations but at least 6-8; not just 3. SA and others could chip in too perhaps.

Since when has India ever really showed any concern for the benefits of an essentially Anglo construct? After all it was the English who created this "modern" sport in the middle of the 19th C (sure it has evolved considerably since then) founded upon a unique set of social conventions... one could almost say there is a definite hint of "religion" and of course some Law in there... which makes this game so fascinating still. You can see why this appealed to other nations within the Empire and took off very quickly in countries like Australia, South Africa, India, NZ, WI, etc.

Don't get me wrong: I understand with the advent of the shorter forms of the game, which generate more revenue in certain countries is something that cannot be denied. That is all great. However, let's not forget the origins and the originator of the purest form of the game. Test Cricket.

There should be room for everybody. If a nation wants to concentrate on T20 - fair enough, support and encourage them; but we shouldn't ever neglect what our ancestors created for our 'leisure' and enjoyment... and to keep us off the streets when we had a little too much energy. It was never about money really. In fact, it was about quite the opposite. Of course today it's all about money - at the expense of the game itself. Unbelievable!

Surely the ECB and CA must acknowledge this? Or is Srinivasan and his "working group" of the F&CA so completely out of touch with this understanding of our game; it's not theirs. They should be nowhere near the control of the game of cricket. They are unqualified in every respect to decide what is good for the game and also what is good for those who properly appreciate it.

Not quite.

I understand the question now. I answer to the best of my knowledge, but there may be inaccuracies.

The answer to your question is essentially on the balance sheet all the revenue from an event (so gate receipts, any TV rights specifically for that event, etc.) goes to the ICC, but counts as "coming from" the home side's board (this includes ICC events, so that profits from the 2011 WC got counted as revenue to the ICC brought along from India, which may explain in part the 80% figure...).

The ICC's revenue includes all revenue from bilateral/triangular series (if part of the FTP), ICC events (such as world cups, etc.), and sponsorship.

This is then reinvested towards members by ways of a grant (the home board then funds the majority of the costs of any bilateral event; the away board funds only its players expenses), into events (but the expenditures related to these events comes under the heading of "ICC events" rather than as a cost to the home board, so that when India says "we only get x when we put in y" it is as I call it creative accounting, because the "y" they put in includes revenue from a global tournament, but the "x" they take out includes none of the expenses related to running it), into development grants (given to and administered by the regional offices, e.g. ICC Europe) and so on.

So what happens is that for (say) a home series SA vs Aus, the series is mainly funded by SA out of the grant they receive from the ICC, and the revenue they make from it goes back to the ICC.

However if the series is outside the FTP then the home board gets to keep the profits (which is why tours from India outside the FTP are heavily sought after).

Boards are funded by ICC grants (which they are basically told how to spend), government grants, private sponsorship, and local events (e.g. IPL, BBL - the ICC as far as I know sees none of the profits from these). They spend money on salaries (staff and players), development projects, subsidies to teams (for the first class sides at least), and events the ICC compels them to do.

I think that's about the gist of it.

Thank you that clears up a lot.

Why does it run that way, thus is the only sport I know that works on a basis where all fevenue to do with unternational cricket goes to the governing body?

So Mike, in other words, the next Big ICC event will be the 2015 World Cup hosted by Australia, and therefore the origin of the generated revenue for that will reflect a new "lion's share" from one of the "Big 3"?

In other words, we've been roped into this by our own greed (and England and India's insatiable greed) at the expense of all of the other cricketing nations. Such a shame. If the proposal gets signed off (hopefully CSA can stall it long enough but chances look slim with the decision to be ratified in Feb) then all the gate and TV rights will mostly... if not all... go back to Oz, England and India.

What I'd like to see happen amongst sporting fans in England and SA in particular is what is sort of happening already in Australia. We sort of cross-pollinate funds into developments from one sport into another. It's the complete antithesis of the Irish rugby v GAA thing if you know what I mean. All sports here try to accommodate others and share the spoils. It's the best way and we're all so happy for that.

For example, the new Bradman-Noble Stand was funded by SCG Members (cricket + AFL members). There are about 13 home AFL games/year x 35,000 ave. So in a way, the Swans faithful paid for that massive redevelopment. In turn, the cricket fans pack in there during the summer and also generate revenue - but only for 5 days of Test Cricket plus say 4-6 ODIs/T20s. It's kind of a symbiotic sporting relationship and it works wonderfully.

I don't know if a similar thing has occurred at Old Trafford, for example, with the new facilities and increased capacity. Can Man U fans get easy access to OT and cricket fans to the football ground? So much money in gate revenue and TV rights for both there. If not, then maybe a concerted effort is needed. (Although there isn't really a problem in the UK. There is always demand and the grounds are always full to capacity)

It should be the same for rugby/football fans in SA who also love their cricket. I've noticed their cricket grounds are behind the times... could do with significant upgrades. CSA should do a deal with Soccer City or Ellis Park to cross-promote their respective sports more - and generate some cash to fix up Wanderers. Ditto Durban - Kingsmead may well have good history but the ground looks a shambles. They need to feed off the punters at NM Stadium and get their house back in order. Newlands looks the best of the SA venues... maybe don't change too much there but I haven't seen the facilities. Centurion could be prettied up too.

The whole gist of what I'm saying is that by having better relationships with people who like more than one sport (including cricket) there are plenty of opportunities to attract more fans and therefore more revenue into better organised venues. It requires more vision and foresight though... which may well be the stumbling block.

LB, the ECB and CA are no holy cows or unwilling partners dragged into the manipulative plans of the BCCI. If anything, the BCCI learned the art of bullying from the other 2, all that they've done is to take it to the 21st century level. As Harsha Bhogle rightly observed in the article I shared above,
"It also shows that England and Australia are like everyone else; that when presented the opportunity to be powerful and exclusive, they will take it."

If South Africa could manage enough support, and if there is significant, visible opposition among cricket lovers across the world like it happened with the 2015 WC and the associates situation, that is the way to try and change things.

My thoughts on this are unnecessary as they have been widely covered, it is one of the most scandalous things I've ever seen to be frank. I would however reiterate that public pressure can do wonderful things, so urge everyone to sign the petition here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-to-oppose-international-cricket-council

(Mike's already posted it, but re-posting it anyway). In fact, given how few members we have on here, is there any chance one of our two mods (LB or Bilt) could create a sticky inviting participants from other boards to sign? I imagine this is something that would resonate quite a bit with sports fans in general, from my visits to other boards: the boxing and rugby boards in particular seems to be quite frequently complaining about how their sport is run...

The reason the ICC works like this is that it was set-up and is still like a members club rather than a governing body.

LB that's interesting about cross sport relationships. Although I guess easier in Aus because of the long-standing relation between Aussie rules (surely whoever came up with that name was being ironic?) and cricket; as you say it could be repeated in other countries...

Gotta agree with msp. One thing this whole episode has done is put to rest the complaints of some Anglo-Australians of being bullied by the BCCI.

msp83 wrote:LB, the ECB and CA are no holy cows or unwilling partners dragged into the manipulative plans of the BCCI. If anything, the BCCI learned the art of bullying from the other 2, all that they've done is to take it to the 21st century level. As Harsha Bhogle rightly observed in the article I shared above,
"It also shows that England and Australia are like everyone else; that when presented the opportunity to be powerful and exclusive, they will take it."

msp, I can never really take anything Harsha says seriously. "learning the art of bullying" is a lame excuse anyway and one important ingredient is missing: namely a proper understanding or unbiased appreciation of the history of the game. You must have misunderstood what I wrote above.

The BCCI has no right to meddle with who can or cannot play cricket and they have certainly not taken the game "to the 21st C level" at all either.

Don't kid yourself. They've pretty much ruined it more like.

If you think that's all well and good then I feel sorry for the players and fans from the countries who will miss out on the opportunity to develop this sport - as England (and the rest of the the cricketing fraternity) allowed India to do but which you seem to so completely ignore.

Mike, only certain individuals representing our countries have sold out... which is very alarming. What I am saying to msp is that he cannot condone the intent of the proposal and call it a positive contribution to the current state of affairs. I think there could possibly be some bribery going on. The Indian way of doing business - which should be nowhere near the activities of the governing body.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:My thoughts on this are unnecessary as they have been widely covered, it is one of the most scandalous things I've ever seen to be frank. I would however reiterate that public pressure can do wonderful things, so urge everyone to sign the petition here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-to-oppose-international-cricket-council

(Mike's already posted it, but re-posting it anyway). In fact, given how few members we have on here, is there any chance one of our two mods (LB or Bilt) could create a sticky inviting participants from other boards to sign? I imagine this is something that would resonate quite a bit with sports fans in general, from my visits to other boards: the boxing and rugby boards in particular seems to be quite frequently complaining about how their sport is run...

MfC,

If either you (or Mike) could write a short paragraph summarising it in a nutshell - then I'll turn the post into a sticky first thing in the morning.
(already after 1am here - I'm up after 6am) Just some carefully chosen words to catch people's interest and lead to your Petition page, MfC.

You are both more eloquent with words than I am and probably better equipped to emphasise the salient concerns generated by this proposal.

It needs to be properly set out and easy to read.

I'd put line spaces between the main points 1,2 and 3... just to make them stand out more and avoid abbreviations like "Exec Ctte" even though everyone probably knows what it means. Can you edit your Petition page, MfC?

Are those links on the petition page correct? Is it possible to turn them into direct hyperlinks so people can click and read the documents?

Something like this:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Petition to Oppose International Cricket Council Reorganisation

To the Chief Executives of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the England and Wales Cricket Board and Cricket Australia.


This Petition calls on you to:


1. Cancel plans for a new ICC Executive Committee with only three Boards as Permanent Members.


2. Cancel plans to increase the revenue share of the three proposed Permanent Members of the Executive Committee at the expense of the 103 other Members.


3. Cancel plans for other measures increasing the power and share of revenue of the BCCI, ECB and CA at the expense of other Boards and the good of the game.


The International Cricket Council's Strategic Plan for 2011-2015 clearly states that the organisation's values are:

Fairness and Integrity,
Excellence,
Accountability,
Teamwork,
Respect for diversity,
Commitment to the global game and its great spirit.

These are clearly not respected by the proposals leaked to the media on 17th January 2014.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/710723.html

The cricketing world is a small one and the game's long-term development cannot be safeguarded when administrators insist on an approach placing self-interest ahead of the wider good of the game.

This Proposal effectively sidelines 103 of the ICC's 106 Members.

Cricket supporters deserve better than that the sport they love be governed by an oligarchical cartel.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(My corrections in red - mostly capitalisations. If Mike or anyone wants to add or subtract anything or word any part better- please feel free to post any changes below)

Linebreaker wrote:

msp83 wrote:LB, the ECB and CA are no holy cows or unwilling partners dragged into the manipulative plans of the BCCI. If anything, the BCCI learned the art of bullying from the other 2, all that they've done is to take it to the 21st century level. As Harsha Bhogle rightly observed in the article I shared above,
"It also shows that England and Australia are like everyone else; that when presented the opportunity to be powerful and exclusive, they will take it."

msp, I can never really take anything Harsha says seriously. "learning the art of bullying" is a lame excuse anyway and one important ingredient is missing: namely a proper understanding or unbiased appreciation of the history of the game. You must have misunderstood what I wrote above.

The BCCI has no right to meddle with who can or cannot play cricket and they have certainly not taken the game "to the 21st C level" at all either.

Don't kid yourself. They've pretty much ruined it more like.

If you think that's all well and good then I feel sorry for the players and fans from the countries who will miss out on the opportunity to develop this sport - as England (and the rest of the the cricketing fraternity) allowed India to do but which you seem to so completely ignore.

Mike, only certain individuals representing our countries have sold out... which is very alarming. What I am saying to msp is that he cannot condone the intent of the proposal and call it a positive contribution to the current state of affairs. I think there could possibly be some bribery going on. The Indian way of doing business - which should be nowhere near the activities of the governing body.

Well, I assume sleep was catching up rather quickly when you were writing the post.
I didn't say the BCCI was taking the game to the 21st century, what I said was that they took the art of bullying that they learned from England Australia to the next level.
Secondly, the BCCI are not the first one who tried to decide who should play cricket. You can research a bit of Sri Lanka's cricket history and focus on their struggle to gain test status.
Now back to my original point, that the ECB and CA are hand in gloves with the BCCI in putting forward this insidious and obnoxious proposal, and no holier than thou pretensions and proclamations would make it otherwise. The 3 boards deserved to be condemned for what they have done, there is no way the ECB and CA can be left alone, there is no way the blame can exclusively be laid at the BCCI's door. And I am attributing the reference to the Indian Way of Doing Business to the late hour, otherwise we can go back to Mark Waugh, Shane Warne, and the entire coverup and on and on.......

I like the idea of promotion and relegation and the opportunity it brings for new countries to take on test status - but really can't see how that works if England, Australia and India are immune. Doesn't that just mean South Africa would DEFINITELY have a relegation play off every few years??

I really hope this initial idea is ditched, otherwise it's R.I.P. international cricket.

Some good news perhaps?
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/711901.html

msp83 wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:

msp83 wrote:LB, the ECB and CA are no holy cows or unwilling partners dragged into the manipulative plans of the BCCI. If anything, the BCCI learned the art of bullying from the other 2, all that they've done is to take it to the 21st century level. As Harsha Bhogle rightly observed in the article I shared above,
"It also shows that England and Australia are like everyone else; that when presented the opportunity to be powerful and exclusive, they will take it."

msp, I can never really take anything Harsha says seriously. "learning the art of bullying" is a lame excuse anyway and one important ingredient is missing: namely a proper understanding or unbiased appreciation of the history of the game. You must have misunderstood what I wrote above.

The BCCI has no right to meddle with who can or cannot play cricket and they have certainly not taken the game "to the 21st C level" at all either.

Don't kid yourself. They've pretty much ruined it more like.

If you think that's all well and good then I feel sorry for the players and fans from the countries who will miss out on the opportunity to develop this sport - as England (and the rest of the the cricketing fraternity) allowed India to do but which you seem to so completely ignore.

Mike, only certain individuals representing our countries have sold out... which is very alarming. What I am saying to msp is that he cannot condone the intent of the proposal and call it a positive contribution to the current state of affairs. I think there could possibly be some bribery going on. The Indian way of doing business - which should be nowhere near the activities of the governing body.

Well, I assume sleep was catching up rather quickly when you were writing the post.
I didn't say the BCCI was taking the game to the 21st century, what I said was that they took the art of bullying that they learned from England Australia to the next level.
Secondly, the BCCI are not the first one who tried to decide who should play cricket. You can research a bit of Sri Lanka's cricket history and focus on their struggle to gain test status.
Now back to my original point, that the ECB and CA are hand in gloves with the BCCI in putting forward this insidious and obnoxious proposal, and no holier than thou pretensions and proclamations would make it otherwise. The 3 boards deserved to be condemned for what they have done, there is no way the ECB and CA can be left alone, there is no way the blame can exclusively be laid at the BCCI's door. And I am attributing the reference to the Indian Way of Doing Business to the late hour, otherwise we can go back to Mark Waugh, Shane Warne, and the entire coverup and on and on.......

Expand please? In Pm if necessary.

Reading the comments on that article has given me renewed hope that greed will indeed win on the day. I can't for the life of me understand fans who behave like pseudo-Boards justifying all decisions as long as they make financial sense... heh? Are you a cricket fan or an economics student? It's a bit like boxing fans who justify their favorite boxers not taking big fights because they don't make financial sense. When on earth did fans double up as promoters and accountants?

I suppose the boxing analogy is a good one, because there was a time when being the champion of the world in boxing was the greatest achievement on earth, but bad, money chasing administration has shown itself capable of ruining a sport once watched by hundreds of millions over the world, to one where championship fights have viewership figures of a couple hundred thousand.

Money and sport - what are we left with?

Football has been ruined by money.
Rugby Union is splitting because of money.
Boxing has been destroyed by greed and politics.
Snooker appears to struggle with corruption.
Cricket is going through this.

What are we left with?

Tennis. That's bloody well what.

Come on Muzza!

ShahenshahG wrote:

msp83 wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:

msp83 wrote:LB, the ECB and CA are no holy cows or unwilling partners dragged into the manipulative plans of the BCCI. If anything, the BCCI learned the art of bullying from the other 2, all that they've done is to take it to the 21st century level. As Harsha Bhogle rightly observed in the article I shared above,
"It also shows that England and Australia are like everyone else; that when presented the opportunity to be powerful and exclusive, they will take it."

msp, I can never really take anything Harsha says seriously. "learning the art of bullying" is a lame excuse anyway and one important ingredient is missing: namely a proper understanding or unbiased appreciation of the history of the game. You must have misunderstood what I wrote above.

The BCCI has no right to meddle with who can or cannot play cricket and they have certainly not taken the game "to the 21st C level" at all either.

Don't kid yourself. They've pretty much ruined it more like.

If you think that's all well and good then I feel sorry for the players and fans from the countries who will miss out on the opportunity to develop this sport - as England (and the rest of the the cricketing fraternity) allowed India to do but which you seem to so completely ignore.

Mike, only certain individuals representing our countries have sold out... which is very alarming. What I am saying to msp is that he cannot condone the intent of the proposal and call it a positive contribution to the current state of affairs. I think there could possibly be some bribery going on. The Indian way of doing business - which should be nowhere near the activities of the governing body.

Well, I assume sleep was catching up rather quickly when you were writing the post.
I didn't say the BCCI was taking the game to the 21st century, what I said was that they took the art of bullying that they learned from England Australia to the next level.
Secondly, the BCCI are not the first one who tried to decide who should play cricket. You can research a bit of Sri Lanka's cricket history and focus on their struggle to gain test status.
Now back to my original point, that the ECB and CA are hand in gloves with the BCCI in putting forward this insidious and obnoxious proposal, and no holier than thou pretensions and proclamations would make it otherwise. The 3 boards deserved to be condemned for what they have done, there is no way the ECB and CA can be left alone, there is no way the blame can exclusively be laid at the BCCI's door. And I am attributing the reference to the Indian Way of Doing Business to the late hour, otherwise we can go back to Mark Waugh, Shane Warne, and the entire coverup and on and on.......

Expand please? In Pm if necessary.

What exactly?

I've no idea - cover up for a start and i'd not heard anything about Warne/M waugh

Nevermind - Found it

For every Waugh twin there must be 00s (if not 000s) of similar minded Indian equivalents banging on their door. Do you want to go there, msp?

You'll probably try to rope Kerry Packer into this too and say that Narayanaswami Srinivasan is a better 21st C version of a successful businessman (because he's Indian) and is doing wonders for the game.

There's a huge difference between the two men of course. Whilst both were obviously out to make a buck, Packer, at least had a wider vision and was all about bringing the modern game of ODIs to as many people as possible and was a sports fanatic himself.

The same can't be said of NS - who has zero interest in the game and can only see the benefits for himself and his fellow conspirators - including his son-in-law, who no doubt will be setting the markets. How's his court case going by the way?

Linebreaker wrote:I'd love to see CA and ECB do a big backflip and leave BCCI on their own on this one.

BCCI was always bad......Aus and Eng stabbed their brethren in the back  
Brutus times two

KP_fan wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:I'd love to see CA and ECB do a big backflip and leave BCCI on their own on this one.

BCCI was always bad......Aus and Eng stabbed their brethren in the back  
Brutus times two

2 large paper bags under the table, KP_f.

I'm ashamed and angry they fell for it.

Linebreaker wrote:For every Waugh twin there must be 00s (if not 000s) of similar minded Indian equivalents banging on their door. Do you want to go there, msp?

You'll probably try to rope Kerry Packer into this too and say that Narayanaswami Srinivasan is a better 21st C version of a successful businessman (because he's Indian) and is doing wonders for the game.

There's a huge difference between the two men of course. Whilst both were obviously out to make a buck, Packer, at least had a wider vision and was all about bringing the modern game of ODIs to as many people as possible and was a sports fanatic himself.

The same can't be said of NS - who has zero interest in the game and can only see the benefits for himself and his fellow conspirators - including his son-in-law, who no doubt will be setting the markets. How's his court case going by the way?

LB, you are just responding to an imaginary response of mine. I am realistic about the cricket administrators of my country and hold no holier than thou attitude, so when they come up with a stunt, I don't get easily surprised. Used to think you were such a realist!....... It is hard to take, but the sooner you realize the ECB, BCCI and the CA are all together in this obnoxious project and all 3 are using their power for their own purpose, the better it is. If finding illusionary ways to somehow take the blame away from CA and ECB make you feel better, please do carry on.......

So we have the first open defense of the proposal from one of the heads of the Big 3 Boards. And what a surprise, its come from Australia!!.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/711937.html

msp83 wrote:So we have the first open defense of the proposal from one of the heads of the Big 3 Boards. And what a surprise, its come from Australia!!.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/711937.html

Second actually. You missed this one:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/711907.html

"Some members may seek clarity on the financial model but in principle, there is no reason for anyone to oppose the proposal. If it means that bilateral tours could impact to a great extent in the coming years, so be it," a former BCCI office-bearer said.

Are you guys trying to see which cricket board has been the baddest, meanest mothers on earth?

I still believe in the end this will turn out well.

In principle the focus is now on "bilateralism".......what is the schedule, content frequency and monetary arrangement between two countries decided by those two.

In such an arrangement SA stands to gain as does Pakistan because they have a much higher market value.

Nevertheless I think SA is feeling emotionally hurt at three others deciding what to do with the fate of remiander countries

KP_fan wrote:I still believe in the end this will turn out well.

In principle the focus is now on "bilateralism".......what is the schedule, content frequency and monetary arrangement between two countries decided by those two.

In such an arrangement SA stands to gain as does Pakistan because they have a much higher market value.

Nevertheless I think SA is feeling emotionally hurt at three others deciding what to do with the fate of remiander countries

It's OK KP_f. They have tough hides.

They'll come back out onto the wide open plains once all the noise dies down.

Linebreaker wrote:

KP_fan wrote:I still believe in the end this will turn out well.

In principle the focus is now on "bilateralism".......what is the schedule, content frequency and monetary arrangement between two countries decided by those two.

In such an arrangement SA stands to gain as does Pakistan because they have a much higher market value.

Nevertheless I think SA is feeling emotionally hurt at three others deciding what to do with the fate of remiander countries

It's OK KP_f. They have tough hides.

They'll come back out onto the wide open plains once all the noise dies down.

yep, we don't get sensitive, we get even. If we can't nail you in the boardroom (obviously not in this case) or financially( doh) then we'll just have to beat you up Africa style.

Wait a minute so I can put my South Seas shield up. It's made of palm fronds and bamboo.

Where's GE when You need him?   

I haven't posted before on this thread, not because of a lack of interest but because I didn't know the subject well enough. In many ways, I still don't but at least feel I have a better understanding having read through the posts and attachments above - thanks for that.   

I certainly share the major concerns expressed by many others as to the consequences if this proposal comes into being. I also dislike the way it appears to have been formulated behind closed doors. I'm in no position to comment on technical requirements but am sure legal professors could develop a range of related exam questions relating to fiduciary duties, constitutional aspects and governance matters.

That said, one question. Without in any way wishing to be seen as supporting 'The Big Three' in this matter, could it be argued that a driving factor in their proposal is not only 'greed' (as many here have suggested) but also exasperation at the continuing failure of some other member countries to put their own house in order? I'm particularly thinking of the criticism levelled at the West Indies Cricket Board on KingRaf's recent thread about their decline in world cricket. The West Indies are probably the stand out example but they are not alone.

I suspect some proposals are needed but not this one. Better minds than mine will need to come up with what they are. All I would urge is that they be made in an open and transparent way.

From a "new" perspective.

I understand that the BCCI, ECB and CA do not want to fund world cricket, and I have no problem with that.

Any sporting body should endeavour to run a sustainable operation and live within the means of their revenue.

However as I have been explained the revenue model in my view is antiquated and should be scrapped immediately. I propose that every nation's Cricket Board must take ownership and accountability for their finances, thus all revenue earned by the host country must be theirs (that is basically what the big three wants)

The only time revenue must be split is when an ICC trophy event is hosted. The reasoning there is the infrequency with which smaller nations will get to host these tournaments will mean they will hardly ever earn any revenue from these tournaments, hence no matter who hosts the event, all moneys are split evenly amongst the participating nations of said event.

As for power, democracy is the only way to go, and all member nations should have the same vote, as far as the "minnow" nations go, they should have 3 representatives that can vote to ensure fair representation for them.

This obviously will have far reaching consequences for all the smaller unions as financially they will be under pressure, so I suggest a phasing out of the current system to enable the smaller nations to get their affairs in order, sign broadcasting deals for all series, get sponsors sorted, restructure their cost and market, arket market.

All of this can only be done if every nation visit every other nation on a fair and frequent asis, allowing even the smallest nations to earn substantial broadcasting revenue, gate moneys etc.

guildfordbat wrote: Without in any way wishing to be seen as supporting 'The Big Three' in this matter, could it be argued that a driving factor in their proposal is not only 'greed' (as many here have suggested) but also exasperation at the continuing failure of some other member countries to put their own house in order? I'm particularly thinking of the criticism levelled at the West Indies Cricket Board on KingRaf's recent thread about their decline in world cricket. The West Indies are probably the stand out example but they are not alone.

If that's the case, this stance is hardly going to solve the problem....

But I don't think that's the case. I believe the BCCI, ECB and CA are all just motivated by greed.

Bit like guildford , I am unwilling to take a firm stance on an issue about which I am less than fully informed.
Few points : first , this remains a proposal , does it not ? Presumably it will be discussed , argued over , modified perhaps ? And eventually voted on by all ...the Big Three can't carry it themselves. So those who propose the changes will need to convince the other parties of their merit. How it will actually work , financially , I am unsure. But if it is clear that it will just enrich the proponents of the plan at the expense of all others ...will a turkey vote for Christmas ?

Secondly it seems the financial issue is in some ways separate from the matter of the FTP ...which is fairly clearly not working as it was designed to do. Far too much messing about with the number and duration of tours , Tests being deleted seemingly at the whim of one or other country...all for the sake of a fairly meaningless ranking system and a mythical Test Match Championship at some eternally retreating future date...
Any system that sees the currently undisputed leading team playing far less Test Matches than any of the next ranked Test countries seems to me flawed. And judging by the scant crowds evident at many Tests outside the obvious places it isn't doing much for the ongoing viability of Test Cricket.

Two tiered Tests and promotion-relegation : details needed. Does this mean true Tests only for the top 8 ? Or 6 , or 10 , or what ? With some lesser breed of "Super first-class but not Test , played over five days " , for the associates next in line ?
Or does it mean that the current ten , plus a couple of others , are divided up into two groups who only play amongst each other , but all as full status Tests ? With a playoff among the lowest - highest etc every so often to adjust the pecking order ? Stand by for some , say , West Indian re-writing the record books by chopping up the Netherlands in a Test series...
Obviously any system that resulted in , let us say , Australia , being split off from the other major nations just because they had a bad couple of years , would be ridiculous and impractical ; so you can see why the exemption from relegation clause , however unlikely it may seem that it be required , would be sought. Yet a promotion/relegation system which leaves half the field exempt doesn't seem viable either ; so I think that one is a dead duck.

As I said earlier , I have no answers. But perhaps we could wait and see what actully comes out of all this rather than getting over excited in advance ? Petitions against change seem to me a dubious proposition. Surely if a member country is disposed to be either for or against these proposals for whatever reason , it is unlikely to change its stance just because a lot of well meaning but not totally informed people put their names to a list opposing them ?

I hope I am not being overly optimistic ; heaven knows plenty of things have gone wrong with the running of international sports - not just cricket - in recent years. And the financial aspect always distorts what might happen in a perfect world. (And always will)
But I do still hope that what comes out of these discussions will be positive - or at least not all negative - for the game we all love.

Crossed fingers.

Alfie,
I heard something today about CA being worried that if "India was isloated" then this might signal a WSC-style grab for more players to get signed up for the IPL... thereby white-anting domestic cricket structures and turning Test Match cricket into a farce.

Although that does sound like some paranoid reason to back the proposal whilst saying that they have the "interests of the rest of the cricketing world" in consideration. However, like you say, it will enrich the proponents of the plan at the expense of the other cricketing boards they are trying to save. It sure is a double-edged sword in that respect.

If this gets through can we remove Biltongs Mod privileges on the cricket section and give them to KP Fan?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If this gets through can we remove Biltongs Mod privileges on the cricket section and give them to KP Fan?

I also wonder if this is an attempt by the Big Three to wrestle control from CF of his ICC Test Rankings thread.   

guildfordbat wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If this gets through can we remove Biltongs Mod privileges on the cricket section and give them to KP Fan?

I also wonder if this is an attempt by the Big Three to wrestle control from CF of his ICC Test Rankings thread.   

And I presume you post that on here as we are not allowed to discuss the rankings or anything to do with them on the rankings thread    Which means it is just a table of information that anyone could google in 5 seconds, not the most useful thing I have ever seen!

Sorry alfie but you couldn't be further from the reality here. I apologise in advance for a post which may end up as record length even by my standards.

Your first paragraph shows your naivety which is (was?) shared by much of the public. Of course in a properly functioning system proposals are debated, modified, etc. But this is not a properly functioning system. Already the proposal was put on the table as being drawn up by a working group of the Finance committee but we know that most people on the finance committee had never heard of it until it was leaked to the media.

Dave Richardson, the CEO of the ICC had not known about the paper until the media storm errupted. All this less than 2 weeks before the meeting at which the proposal was to be discussed. And you still think due process would have been followed, a fair airing given to concerns?

Do people really believe that the "big three" are acting out of some moral crusade to save test cricket? All case precedent would suggest all ANY of the full members are interested in doing is maximising their financial gains. So let's stop kidding ourselves please, and giving benefits of the doubt to people who have long shown they are worthy of no such thing.

The Woolf report (which has predictably but unfortunately completely been swept under the carpet) identified that the way the ICC was ran by vested interests rather than as an international governing body was harming the development of the game worlwide.

Without the public scrutiny and criticism we are now having there is little doubt the "big three" would have persuaded, cajoled, threatened, "bribed" enough of the "small seven" countries to back the plan.

This is the same body who straight after the 2011 WC announced that the next one would be an invitational event with invitations sent out only to the full members. Despite the fact that Ireland had once again outperformed both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and were at the time ranked above Zimbabwe, even when the ICC's ridiculous ranking system gave them practically no chance of being so. And you know what forced that change in stance? It wasn't reasonable debate conducted at ICC meetings, where proposals were discussed, argued over, and modified. No, that "reasonable debate" ended with the proposal explained above being backed. What forced the ICC to back down was the sheer volume of response from the cricket loving public, who despite what some would have you believe, in general do want to see the game spread, want to see interesting and meaningful contests. That, and the threat of legal action of course.

So no, I'm afraid I don't think twiddling our thumbs and waiting to see what comes from the proposals, whilst singing Kumbawa and pretending that the people discussing these things have any best interests at heart apart from their own is any kind of solution. Because from past experience, and present experience with the way this thing was brought forward, we know what proposal will come out of it. One to satisfy the few and deny the many, as with everything the ICC produces.

We need as cricket fans to stop sitting on the fence doing nothing whilst the sport we love is being destroyed (slowly, but with increasing pace) by the governing body who purports to make the most of it.

With that off my chest (breathe Mike...)...

People often (OK, perhaps not often, but it happens surprisingly regularly) ask me what I would do if I were in charge. They say "that's all very well Mike, but all we hear from you are criticisms; give us something constructive; we all know what's wrong, but how do we fix it?". So here we go, here is Mike Selig's n point plan to save the game of cricket and bring it forward (I use "n" because I've no idea how many points there will end up being).

1) Test cricket:

Unlike some on here, I do not believe that test cricket is the only form of the game that matters. There is much good cricket played in other formats, by other countries, at first class level etc. The suggestion that test cricket needs saving usually comes with the implication (either explicit or implicit) that it should be done even if at the cost of other forms of the game, which I can't agree with. It is also a false dichotomy, because it is not a case of "test cricket or else" - fans who enjoy T20 would probably not watch test cricket if there were no T20s; they simply would not watch cricket. So cricket as a whole benefits from all the forms of the game.

Nevertheless, test cricket remains my favourite sport of all. I don't get up in the middle of the night to watch ODIs, or tennis, or rugby matches. But whenever Aus are playing I will usually either get up or stay up to catch some or all of a day's play. Similarly when South Africa were involved with that fascinating series with India a bit ago. There is no other sport I know of which has so many swings of momentum, where such small things in the context of the match can be so huge, where so many elements of a player's make-up are tested. It is simply brilliant. I love test cricket.

With that in mind, the question has to be why are so many grounds empty or half-empty around the world? I don't believe it is inevitable. Here are a few things which I would change.

a) Make test cricket relevant:
Series like the Ashes attract people not only because the standard is high, but because the rivalry is great, and the history present. But we have seen with the recent series that fans quickly get tired if the same product is repeated over and over with no wider context. Nobody really cares about the world rankings, and there is no test match championship.

What I would do is create 2 (eventually 3) divisions of test cricket, with 8 teams per division. Each side to play each other in a series over the course of 4 years. The series would be a minimum of 3 matches for Div 1, 2 for Div 2 and 1 for eventual Div 3. If teams wish to play in longer series they may choose to do so; however (and this is the crux) in those series, only the final match would count towards your ranking. This gives the series an added twist; it reduces meaningless matches, and makes things current. The point system should be simply 1 point for a losing draw (based on first innings), 2 for a winning draw and 4 points for a win.

Imagine an ashes series locked with the score at 1-1 (or 2-2) going into the final test, with whoever wins assured of finishing top of the world for that cycle? It would be amazing!

At the end of the 4-year cycle, the top 4 teams battle it out in a test championship; 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. In the case of a draw the higher ranked side progresses. If it's a draw in the final the trophy is shared (or think of an eliminator). The bottom team of each division plays the top of the previous division in a 1 game, winner takes all play-off; the team from the lower division has to win the play-off outright to be promoted, but plays at home.

Teams who wish to play each-other more often of course may do so. Teams who wish to play an opponent in a different division (or two teams not in any division) may do so.

b) Make test cricket more approachable:
This doesn't mean dumbing down test cricket with fireworks, music and cheap beer (as opposed to champagne at Lords). However day-night test cricket is such an obvious direction, I have no idea why it hasn't happened yet. There may be no huge demand for it in England, but in places like India where it is sometimes oppressively hot in the (concrete) stands during the day, it would surely make things easier. Also, people could go after work and catch most of the day's play.
Other things I would consider are numbers on the back of shirts, and micing the players up (I know these are innovations from the shorter formats, but honestly think they would add to the experience).

c) Make test cricket more global:
This sort of speaks for itself. I'm afraid I can't take the argument about statistics being broken at all seriously. Nobody considers the Jappanese winger who scored all those tries the best winger of all time. Nobody considers the Australian football (soccer) side who beat Western Samoa something like 38-0 the best team of all time. IN the (IMO unlikely) scenario of Darren Bravo scoring 500 against the Netherlands nobody will think of him as the best player of all time either (in fact nobody thought Hayden was a better batsman than Tendulkar when Hayden scored his 380, and Sachin had yet to reach 200 I think at the time, which kind of proves the point). The world won't suddenly stop and go loopy.

No, any two teams who want to should be able to play each other in an official 5 day international match (assuming certain conditions like rules and neutral umpires, although type of wicket and size of ground shouldn't be one, unless we want to erase a significant number of previous test matches as well). And that match should be called a test match. You cannot on the one hand say "test cricket is great" and then turn around to the vast majority of cricket playing countries and say "sorry but you can't join". It defies belief. Peter Roebuck wrote that test status had ceased being an aspiration and become a stigma a while ago; I don't always agree with him, but he couldn't be more right on this.

Imagine the USA (I believe the USA population would love test cricket BTW; they love sports when seemingly nothing much happens for a while and all of a sudden there is a stretch of frantic action) playing Nepal in a test match in either Florida or those great stadiums (and fanatical fans) they have in Nepal? Would such a game really be detrimental to test cricket? Or on the contrary is it something to get excited about? I know my answer...

2) ODIs and T20s

ODIs and T20s already have a main event. My issue is therefore that ODI and T20 series are in the main considered merely as warm-ups and preparations for the world cup. This leads to teams often resting their players, trying out combinations, and a drop in both standards and interest (I accept in some countries interest is high still).

You therefore need to make these matches relevant.

I would introduce a seeding system for the world cup based on the rankings.

Work on a 4-year cycle again. Year 0 is the world cup year. After the world cup (more on how this will work later), the 8 quarter-finalists are banded together as division 1; the other 8 teams at the world cup make up division 2. The leading WCL nations outside these 16 make up division 3 for 50 over cricket, replacing the current WCL 1 - promotion to and from Div 3 as per the current WCL structure (no division 3 for T20s needed IMO). Again, within these divisions, every side plays every other home and away, with each series being between 3 and 5 matches long. In these formats the series score should go towards the ranking, with a similar system to the current one.

Crucially the rankings at the end of the cycle would be used as seedings/qualifications for the coming world cup.

Again, teams can play each other more often if they choose to do so. They can play triangular series and the like but this is outside the ranking system.

3) World cups.

A world cup should actually be a world cup. It should be an event where every side has to qualify (either by rankings, or previous results, or through a qualification tournament) and every side in the world has a chance to qualify.

My world cup format is simple: 16 in 4 groups of 4; top 2 to quarter finals. None of this bloated super 6/8 nonsense. All the matches will be meaningful, the tournament will be exciting, global, at times surprising and over relatively quickly. Cricket has to stop being wary of the surprise result; cricket is a sport, and in sport surprises happen. In the long run the game will be better for it.

I would have the top 8 (i.e. under my system the whole of the first division) qualify automatically, and probably the top x (x = 4 seems a reasonable number) of the second division. The remaining 4 come from a qualification event managed in a similar way to the current one taking place. For T20s, the remaining 4 would come from a global qualifier (the other sides of division 2 would be automatically in the global qualifier, and joined by winners and runners-up of regional qualifiers, as happens currently).

However the rankings should be determined to seed the WC groups. So the number 1 ranked side is with 8, etc. This actually makes the rankings matter, and brings cricket in line with every other sport I know of.

In time I would like to see the T20 WC increased to 32 teams, but we are a long way off.

4) Cricket at the Olympics.

This again is so obvious. But it hasn't happened, because it is financially against the interests of the big few (although it would be very much to the financial benefit of most of the countries, e.g. France would more than double our budget if cricket was an Olympic sport). Also, because the BCCI (alongside possibly others, but the BCCI is known) doesn't like the Olympic charter which it would have to sign up (including anti-corruption measures, and anti-doping programs). Also precisely because they would have less power over the smaller nations. Also because Pepsi is a major sponsor of the ICC (whereas the Olympics are sponsored by...). Finally because there would actually have to be a fair and transparent qualification system.

OK, so there are a lot of objections. But they shouldn't be insurmountable; indeed most of them are petty or misguided (the Pepsi one is an issue, and I'm not sure of the way around that). Cricket should be showcased at the Olympics. They should use the T20 format. 24 teams, in a pure knock-out format. The top 8 (= current division 1 teams in T20 format) get a bye in the first round. Again, exciting, global, current. Different format which makes it more interesting.

5) Finances:

The current financial model is silly.

The ICC should run only global events. It should also subsidise its official tournaments as follows:
- division 1: funded by the members who also keep the profits; any series not profitable should be subsidised by the ICC;
- division 2: ICC to fund half the costs; members to fund the rest; members to keep all profits. Eventually this should run as division 1 (which it will, when boards get the backing they need and cricket is known as a global sport).
- division 3 (50 overs only as of now): ran and funded as per WCL.

The funds from global events go back to the ICC, who will also receive sponsorship. As well as the above, the ICC uses these to fund:
- grants to boards based on what a board needs, not based on the board's status. There is no point the ICC giving India $4M, it doesn't need it. On the other hand, countries like Nepal, PNG could do with grants to help renew their stadiums, etc.
- regional tournaments (as per currently)
- development at grass-roots level, which should be the main source of expenditure by the ICC.

6) Organisation and administration:

We need the Woolf review recommendations followed through. Simply put the ICC has to become a governing body concerned with the sport globally rather than run by narrow self interests.

We need 3 neutral directors on the executive committee. There is no need for every test playing nation to have their own representative. Rather, there should be a D1 rep, a D2 rep, a D3 rep, and a regional rep for each region.

The code of ethics should be strictly adhered to.

The principle of 1 country 1 vote should then be applied at AGMs and the like.

===

There you have it. Some is radical and long-term, some is easy enough and should honestly be possible in the short to medium term. Most of it of course is just wishful thinking, but counters the argument "well what do you suggest?".

All of it would IMO be to the benefit of ALL forms of cricket in the long term, and if eventually implemented would lead to cricket being a recognised sport globally.

Brilliant post Mike. I was about to write something along the same lines but a little less eloquently. The Woolf Report gave the blueprint for a reasoned revolution in ICC governance but instead it has been ignored and we have the exact opposite being proposed. The moves proposed by the 'big 3' or 'triads' are scandalous and if they go through as I suspect & fear they will, it will be a sad day for cricket!
You have to wonder what is the benefit of a sport having all the money in the world but ceasing to have something that is without credibility, context, consequence or reward based on results. I really just dont understand the obsession of exclusion and the classist system which exists in cricket circles. Is it really wonder too much to ask to have a sport where everyone has equal opportunity?

I hope they sort out a usable enough ball so that test cricket could be played in a day-night format. I am telling you it could make a serious difference in many countries including India.

Fantastic suggestions Mike, very similar to my own thoughts, although very detailed and eloquently stated.

One aspect that you didn't go into detail on is the home series revenue must go to the home nation in my view, other than that I totally agree.

Oh and for those of you interested, cricinfo seem to be suggesting that the BCCI are playing the "else I'll take my ball away" card (the article suggests the BCCI have essentially said either they get a bigger share of the revenue, or they will stop participating in ICC events). Anybody still think they're motivated by saving test cricket?

Note (to msp in particular): I hope it's clear from my previous posts I am not giving the BCCI more blame than anybody else in this (as I said earlier, one thing this has done is put to bed the myth that CA and the ECB are merely being dragged along unwillingly). It just so happens that they seem to be the ones playing the "my ball" card.

2nd note: there isn't much of substance in the cricinfo article, so this is hypothetical at the moment.

Yeah, just read the article Mike.
As I said, they can't really surprise me too often, and yet again they fail.......
The only interesting thing from that article is that the proponents of the proposal with in the BCCI, while planting themselves firmly on the higher revenue plank, also talk about bringing test cricket to the plush new stadiums in the country. They also talked about negotiations. I have a feeling that the 'No Relegation clause has been put in there so that the other side could be seen to have walked away with something at the end of the day, the BCCI's central plank is greater revenue share.......

Yeah....speculative report emerging from media should be dismissed only when they pertain to Flower's ultimatums.

All others forms of speculative leaked reports are good enough though to burn a ton of fuel and write 10,000 word essay  

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.