ICC Board approves changes to governance, competition and financial models

[Aarush]

dont know never checked my status, how can i find out??
I just come here for a few laughs, life is too serious to worry wether Ishant is faster or Ajmal

 

[Slayer786]

paisa bolta hain. Keh bhai paisa bolta hain.
Bengalis sold out. South Africans sold out. Shame on them.

 

[sarthak]

GREED can be very very DANGEROUS.

I had lost interest in cricket since the time IPL started & it became clear that its all about MONEY rather than sports.

I think 1000s of crores aren't enough for BCCI yet.

Just wait & see, more F-1 races in India, Soccer, Tennis, Hockey & more medals in Olympics, People of India will lose interest in Cricket slowly but steadily.

Future of cricket.........or i may say, Cricket has no future left now.

BCCI has done nothing wrong. BCCI generates the most funds for cricket and they deserve a percentage of the profit in proportion to the revenue they generate. PCB and SLB have enjoyed freebies for far too long , not any more. Suppose I tell you ;Let's go to the casino and play Roulette. I put in 10 bucks , you put in 90 bucks. If we lose , nothing more to say, and If we double the money, I get a 100 and you get a 100. Is that a fair deal for you? This new proposal ensures that such shit doesn't happen any more.

 

[karan.1970]

Not really. It was Pakistan against the bullying of England and Australia back in 80's and 90's. India was not part of that group at that time. So no PCB didn't oppose this farce just because India was part of it. You are wrong.

I am glad if that's true... Find it hard to believe though..

 

[Areesh]

I am glad if that's true... Find it hard to believe though..

That's the truth. you should read about Cricket history back in 80's and 90's. And now we fear that we are back into those days.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Pakistan and the Big Three

We all love a last stand, and Pakistan cricket has enjoyed a few. Inzamam-ul Haq and Mushtaq Ahmed nudged and scampered a final-wicket partnership of 57 to defeat Australia and win a Test series
in 1994
. Two years earlier, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis stood firm to beat England at Lord's. Imran Khan was known for standing alone, defying fierce rivals from all nations.

I hark back to those times because the 1980s and 1990s saw a power shift in international cricket. The imperial rule of Australia and England, the Big Two, was challenged primarily by India - but with the support of Pakistan and others. The popularity and pull of the game in South Asia was irresistible. In those times, winning a Test match or series against the old powers was more than cricket. It was a blow for the disempowered in international cricket.

India, it seems ironic now, led the charge and clamour for equality in world cricket. A fair, representative, international cricket council was best for the transformation of the Commonwealth's game into a truly global sport. India needed its fellow rebels, the nations that are now cajoled, tempted and arm-twisted into compliance. Yet India quickly outgrew these allies. The biggest population, the fastest growing economy, and the most valuable television rights rendered any of its less powerful accomplices meaningless.

This is a linear history, but history is also circular. For now we are pretty much back where we started. Instead of a Big Two we have a Big Three, the new imperialists. India now leads a system that is a reinvention of the old one. At least there is some honesty about this world of cricket. India is brazenly in charge; no democracy here, thank you very much. Australia and England are brides who bring the biggest dowries. The rest are dogs at a wedding feast, feeding off scraps from the top table.

Not much else has changed since the old days. The world of cricket is not significantly bigger. No sport confuses politics and sport like cricket does. There is no independent ruling body. Since the 1970s, at least, the purpose of cricket has been to make money. Except, nobody now pretends to act in the best interests of the spirit of cricket. Greed is good, celebrated and rewarded.

Where this leaves Pakistan is in a mess. No home international tours; distanced from its old political ally India; less sellable, albeit more intriguing, than most international teams. The Pakistan Cricket Board has chosen to make a virtue of its disenfranchisement. Pakistan stands alone, against the rule of the Big Three. And so should any rational analysis. Bravo PCB. We don't often say that.

But the recent back-to-back Ashes series serve as a warning. The Big Three endlessly playing the Big Three will become tedious. Cricket will not grow as a global sport. The financial obsession of the Big Three will not allow such long-term investment. What the Big Three say will go. The Big Three will decide who hosts major tournaments. The Big Three will settle on the structure and format of international cricket. The Big Three will control the laws of the game. The Big Three will judge which players are hounded out of the game for chucking balls and throwing games. Perhaps the Big Three will also decide who wins and who loses? After all, why disappoint a sponsor? And a happy population is good for commercial partners and the economy.

Be in no doubt, the financial arguments to justify the new structure are a smokescreen. The arguments for equity in distribution of revenues are a diversion. These could all have been agreed without the accompanying corporate changes.

Look no further than cricket's organogram. The corporate changes are the beginning, middle and end of this proposal. Power and greed, grand corrupters both, are driving the new proposals. Inequity in the governance of cricket will now be enshrined in its articles.

India is the dominant cricket board of the three, and it will be tested like all leaders are. There is no bitterness in this statement, just regret. I don't pretend that Pakistan's stance is one of genuine idealism. It is pragmatism: a country with nothing left to lose, facing a future of legislated marginalisation. Had Pakistan been invited into the ruling cabal, the PCB would now be singing the benefits of the new system. But the structure delivers overall power to India. Who are Australia and England to challenge India's financial muscle?

In between the years of the Big Two and the Big Three, a shadow world that India ruled while pretending not to, India's leadership of cricket was a disappointment. As such, I don't accept the argument that India has an automatic right to leadership of world cricket. Not because my allegiance is with Pakistan but because India's behind-the-scenes rule of cricket has been incredibly self-serving. India's track record of decision-making for the good of cricket is poor, and nothing predicts behaviour like behaviour, as any decent psychiatrist will tell you.

Indeed, leadership in any sphere must be by merit and based on values, not snatched by force. The dominant value in the world of the Indian cricket board is the commercial value proposition. Greed is good and greed has won, whatever Punjabi-film-style posturing the PCB has begun. But the lesson of history is that no empire lasts forever. We might not always be able to imagine how it will end, but as surely as day follows night, as verily as a Misbah dot ball follows a Misbah dot ball, the tyranny of the Big Three will end.

But the question for now is: How long can the Big Three last?

Blogs: Kamran Abbasi: Pakistan and the Big Three | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[karan.1970]

Pakistan and the Big Three

We all love a last stand, and Pakistan cricket has enjoyed a few. Inzamam-ul Haq and Mushtaq Ahmed nudged and scampered a final-wicket partnership of 57 to defeat Australia and win a Test series
in 1994
. Two years earlier, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis stood firm to beat England at Lord's. Imran Khan was known for standing alone, defying fierce rivals from all nations.

I hark back to those times because the 1980s and 1990s saw a power shift in international cricket. The imperial rule of Australia and England, the Big Two, was challenged primarily by India - but with the support of Pakistan and others. The popularity and pull of the game in South Asia was irresistible. In those times, winning a Test match or series against the old powers was more than cricket. It was a blow for the disempowered in international cricket.

India, it seems ironic now, led the charge and clamour for equality in world cricket. A fair, representative, international cricket council was best for the transformation of the Commonwealth's game into a truly global sport. India needed its fellow rebels, the nations that are now cajoled, tempted and arm-twisted into compliance. Yet India quickly outgrew these allies. The biggest population, the fastest growing economy, and the most valuable television rights rendered any of its less powerful accomplices meaningless.

This is a linear history, but history is also circular. For now we are pretty much back where we started. Instead of a Big Two we have a Big Three, the new imperialists. India now leads a system that is a reinvention of the old one. At least there is some honesty about this world of cricket. India is brazenly in charge; no democracy here, thank you very much. Australia and England are brides who bring the biggest dowries. The rest are dogs at a wedding feast, feeding off scraps from the top table.

Not much else has changed since the old days. The world of cricket is not significantly bigger. No sport confuses politics and sport like cricket does. There is no independent ruling body. Since the 1970s, at least, the purpose of cricket has been to make money. Except, nobody now pretends to act in the best interests of the spirit of cricket. Greed is good, celebrated and rewarded.

Where this leaves Pakistan is in a mess. No home international tours; distanced from its old political ally India; less sellable, albeit more intriguing, than most international teams. The Pakistan Cricket Board has chosen to make a virtue of its disenfranchisement. Pakistan stands alone, against the rule of the Big Three. And so should any rational analysis. Bravo PCB. We don't often say that.

But the recent back-to-back Ashes series serve as a warning. The Big Three endlessly playing the Big Three will become tedious. Cricket will not grow as a global sport. The financial obsession of the Big Three will not allow such long-term investment. What the Big Three say will go. The Big Three will decide who hosts major tournaments. The Big Three will settle on the structure and format of international cricket. The Big Three will control the laws of the game. The Big Three will judge which players are hounded out of the game for chucking balls and throwing games. Perhaps the Big Three will also decide who wins and who loses? After all, why disappoint a sponsor? And a happy population is good for commercial partners and the economy.

Be in no doubt, the financial arguments to justify the new structure are a smokescreen. The arguments for equity in distribution of revenues are a diversion. These could all have been agreed without the accompanying corporate changes.

Look no further than cricket's organogram. The corporate changes are the beginning, middle and end of this proposal. Power and greed, grand corrupters both, are driving the new proposals. Inequity in the governance of cricket will now be enshrined in its articles.

India is the dominant cricket board of the three, and it will be tested like all leaders are. There is no bitterness in this statement, just regret. I don't pretend that Pakistan's stance is one of genuine idealism. It is pragmatism: a country with nothing left to lose, facing a future of legislated marginalisation. Had Pakistan been invited into the ruling cabal, the PCB would now be singing the benefits of the new system. But the structure delivers overall power to India. Who are Australia and England to challenge India's financial muscle?

In between the years of the Big Two and the Big Three, a shadow world that India ruled while pretending not to, India's leadership of cricket was a disappointment. As such, I don't accept the argument that India has an automatic right to leadership of world cricket. Not because my allegiance is with Pakistan but because India's behind-the-scenes rule of cricket has been incredibly self-serving. India's track record of decision-making for the good of cricket is poor, and nothing predicts behaviour like behaviour, as any decent psychiatrist will tell you.

Indeed, leadership in any sphere must be by merit and based on values, not snatched by force. The dominant value in the world of the Indian cricket board is the commercial value proposition. Greed is good and greed has won, whatever Punjabi-film-style posturing the PCB has begun. But the lesson of history is that no empire lasts forever. We might not always be able to imagine how it will end, but as surely as day follows night, as verily as a Misbah dot ball follows a Misbah dot ball, the tyranny of the Big Three will end.

But the question for now is: How long can the Big Three last?

Blogs: Kamran Abbasi: Pakistan and the Big Three | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

Even though fairly self serving and biased, it s a well written article

 

[Mav3rick]

I wonder who will play against SLC and PCB from now on. They made a wrong bet.

Sometimes, having morals does make things difficult in the short run. However, in the long term, it will be beneficial. Besides, atleast Pakistan did something that Pakistanis can be proud of.......something that the whole world respects! How much respect would sellouts have any more?

Good. Now time for BCCI to pass the rule that whoever scores a run on Ishant Sharma ball is out.

This massive talent of Ishant needs recognition after all.

Another rule too, India to win all matches, regardless. Take the last India/NZ match, India should have been given another chance to make those 40 odd runs to win the Test match.

we all knew it was going to pass.
I'm proud of pcb and sri lankan board.
i'm surprised at the south africans lol, assholes sold out lol.

Well, as somebody said on TV, the chokers did what they are best known for.

but he is in form now,he doesnt need it........as i said we can arrange it for ajmal now

Please do that, as well as for the whole Indian team, outside of India!

I guess it is unnecessary to call them names. You live your life on your talent, not on other's weaknesses. They (SA) must have seen something in it for they decided to vote in favor, nothing wrong.

At the last hour? That's the precise definition of a choker.

 

[Mav3rick]

initially it was proposed that there will be 4 members,but now it has been changed to 5
maybe it was one of their(rsa) requirements.....
and some bilateral series and money would have worked......

we did offered bilateral series to Pak in neutral venues also,but they declined....they are idiots,even they knew that the bill would be passes,they could have bargained for some benefits.....

I guess, some things are not for sale!

I think India should ban Pakistan from international cricket now

Honestly, I would love to see that, with more then 27% of the cricket lovers (through international referendum) supporting Pakistan over other teams, the financial loss would be astronomical. Even IPL could have had such a massive following in Pakistan, had they a team like the ICL Pakistani team.

 

[Banned Member]

I guess, some things are not for sale!

if you cant prevent certain things from happening,its better to be a part of it..........with time,people will forget what you did to save the cricket...........the sooner you understand this,the better it will be for Pakistan cricket

 

[Mav3rick]

Ban Pakistan. Cricket is already not a very international sport like Soccer. Only 10 nations play it, if we consider West Indies to be a nation. South Africa was banned at one time. They got back. Same with Pakistan. Despite your wishes, Pakistan can't be banned. Cricket can't afford it. We are a major Cricket nation.

But the way things are moving, the USA will get sole veto rights after eventually getting into the ICC. If money is the talk of the game, the USA will be the loudest mouth when it eventually enters international cricket.

So now India rules the cricketing world both on and off the field

Ahem....on the field??? Perhaps, you have been in a comma for the past 2 months!

The reason for the decline of cricket in Pakistan is not corruption, but something that happened in Lahore in 2009. Your real major export, terrorism, killed international cricket in Pakistan.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when your country cannot host an international match due to fear of gun trotting, rocket wielding murderers. When you can't host matches, and can't contribute any moolah, what treatment do you expect? He that pays the piper picks the tune.

I wonder how that incident would relate to all the dug up cricket grounds/pitches and serious threats and attacks on international players in India.

 

[Mav3rick]

Pakistan's total population is much more than that of Australia, England, SA, W.I, N.Z, Kenya,Zimbabwe,Ireland, etc all combined.

They have a very huge cricket fan base.

But yet revenue is low and now.... this decision.

It doesnt matter much as for them nukes accumulation,Jihads of all kinds,1000 cuts to east, kaboom guys supports,radicalism on state-level are much prioritized issues than 11 men chasing a silly ball.

On the contrary, it is our refusal to allow these elements to operate internationally, especially in our neighbouring countries.....despite a couple of neighbours encouraging all acts of terrorism in Pakistan! A couple of such incidents in India and IPL/international tours to India would come to a grinding halt, just like it happened to Pakistan.......as a pre planned, supremely well executed attack on the SL team.

 

[Rank]

chutya tareeen hakoomat and aman ka tamsha sethi and topi drama.... giving rights to these chutyaas complete destroy cricket!

 

[chhota bheem]

Dark days for cricket looming ahead.

No problem we will play under floodlights

 

[ashish1]

So India is ruling ICC now
What happened to opposition by Pakistan??