Will the Indian fan turn off the television?

[full_length]

The ICC has gone one step too far now with their hard stance at Dubai. Apparantly any loss of revenue to the ICC due to this present imbroglio with the Indian team will result in India being boycotted in Tests and ODIs.

They want the golden eggs, but not the goose that lays them. Without international matches, will the Indian fan turn off the TV? Without the present indian team, will the average cricket fan in India boycott the official sponsors? Will they insist that they want to see Sachin , Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag, Yuvaraj, Kaif, Parthiv, Zaheer, Bhajji, Nehra, Kumble,.. and not the motley crew led by Robin Singh?

Of the 550 Million $$ that the ICC has signed off the players' individual rights, defied the constitutions of atleast two nations (India and England- may be more- this is against the spirit and letter of law in both nations), atleast 325 Million $$ is India-centric. Sony accounts for more than 200 Million of those. Other major sponsors are.. LG, Pepsi, Doordarshan and Hero Honda.
So are they going to boycott us having accepted this money that three quarters of sponsors have paid primarily with the average Indian cricket fan in mind?
Are they telling us - you give up your players' rights, 'sacrifice' (smells of chopped lamb head) their source of income, otherwise we will not tour you? And yes, we'll take the money thank you!

I am sure there are many indian fans like me who have long stopped believing that the ICC represents us too. They seem to see the Asian nations, and especially India as a necessary evil in the world of cricket. Well so be it. As long as they don't get in the way of cricket they are welcome to send forth their Mike Dennesses- the whole army of them. That will be a pin prick (prick...no pun intended..) but this is a body blow.

So, will the Indian fan switch off the television?
Will he refuse to watch the ICC cup?
How will this affect cricket sponsorship in general? Will sponsors continue to have enough faith in cricket and its governing body to sponsor any event at all?
Are personal sponsorships on their way out?

Was all that we heard about Australian players opposing the offending clause(s) on 'principle' just crap?

Hats off to the Indian team. They made concessions enough by placing a request to their personal sponsors to not air their images during the ICC cup (which incidentally is entirely the wish of the personal sponsors, since contracts have already been inked). Like they pointed out, by the very act of signing the ICC contract they would have broken the law, and were liable to be prosecuted by their personal sponsors. Furthermore, there are those principles that some teams talked about not long ago....

I believe that now, if Sachin and co. stay put, the ball is on the court, no living room, of the Indian cricket fan. Pick up that remote and turn the damn television off.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Very, very good point.

The ICC must take into account the fact that a huge amount of sponsorship is India-centric, and by alienating this they then dig a huge hole for themselves.

They have no rights to demand that the contracts are broken - Indian fans would really get the point across well with a boycott.

 

[full_length]

Sahara can't sponsor Indian team: ICC

PTI [ SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 01, 2002 8:14:33 PM ]

NEW DELHI: Causing further headache to the Indian Cricket Board, the International Cricket Council has refused to allow Sahara to sponsor the Indian team during the Champions Trophy in Sri Lanka later this month.


ICC's executive board, which met in Dubai on Saturday, rejected the sponsorship idea due to a potential conflict of interest between Air Sahara, one of the companies of Sahara India Group, and South African Airlines who are the tournament sponsors, an ICC release said on Sunday.


However, Cricket Board secretary Niranjan Shah said that Sahara could continue its association with the Indian team "in a different form".


"In its present form, the sponsorship by Sahara has been rejected by the ICC. But we have asked the Sahara Group to use different logos," Shah said from Mumbai.


"Sahara has so many companies. They can continue to sponsor the team in a different form. It should not look like conflicting the interests of South African Airlines," he said.

Well, what next.. I wonder if the ICC has any mandate to do this. Anybody? I think that Sahara has been sponsor of the Indian team for quite a long time now.

Is this some twisted way of making sure no board is richer than the next? Are they trying to direct all the money in cricket to the ICC and then distribute it to the boards- communist style? I say this because if team sponsors are going to be cut off in this fashion, soon the ICC will be the only cricket body that sponsors can approach.


A question: a player "x" has signed a contract with a company that is an official sponsor now. This company becomes a competitor to the official sponsor of cricket in 2004. What then?

The ICC sucks. They couldnt promote the game in the nations they represent, and will take the fruit of others' efforts. I think cricket will pay for this in time. When the current administration took over, revenues had multiplied from the where previos administration started. They are riding a cash peak- hence the arrogance. Ofcourse, it was none of their doing. Neither was globalisation that they trumpet all around the place.
Unless this is stopped sahara wont sponsor India, and neither will Pepsi, LG, Coke etc. Vodafone will no longer sponsor England and Cable & Wireless will ditch WI in time.
This administration would have done a good job if they had merely kept present setup floating. They had no reason to rock the ship in this fashion.

 

[full_length]

A flashback

Packer Ruling
The ICC imposing restriction upon players playing for the World Series Cricketwere in unreasonable restraint of trade:
(i) because a ban on cricketers who had already contracted with World Series Cricket from playing was unjustifiable and unreasonable depriving the players from having important means of making their living and in fact that the public would be deprived of the opportunity of watching such players in action;

ii) because a ban on playing would have effectively prevented the players from earning their living from full time cricket; demanding cancellation of any existing contract, or coercing the players to break existing contracts are per se unreasonable and thus illegal. Justice Slade also ordered that to satisfy the test of reasonableness of a contract, the parties must have equal bargaining power and the terms must be certain “negotiated terms” and not an “imposed” one.

***************

The judgement of the Kerry Packer case may actually be the BCCI president’s trump card. This historic case reported in the All England Reporter (Vol. III) on Page 449 details Justice Slade’s judgement that went in favour of the former England captain Greig and his teammates Derek Underwood, Bob Woolmer, Dennis Amiss and Alan Knott who were banned for two years by the ICC and the Test and County Cricket Board (now ECB) for taking in Packer’s World Series Cricket.


In May 1977, Packer’s outlandish proposal _ to contract 50 of the day’s best players and put on a series of travelling matches _ was snootily dismissed by the game’s governing bodies and media pundits alike. Those who signed up were viewed as traitors by their country’s official boards and the “gimmicks” Packer introduced were also slated as vulgar and generally demeaning to the sport.


Justice Slade set aside all restraints on the players as “unreasonable, void and ultra vires and utter prejudicial to the elementary freedom of the players.”

Source for above: The Times of India


See the similarity? Tell me one positive thing that the ECB or the ICC have done for the game since they came to power. The only thing people talk about in this regard is globalisation of the game- something the ICC was never able to achieve till the 90s and inflow of money, in good part, thanks to you know who- the guy they love to hate, and now heads BCCI.

 

[full_length]

And yes, those 'gimmicks' referred to above are what are called One Day Internationals

ODIs are today responsible for cricket being a viable career alternative (offhand: srinath, kumble, dravid - all engineers will never have earned this much working in NIIT or Indian Oil).

Hell, it is the money that these ODIs bring that ICC has signed away the players' rights for.

Think World Cup, think "vulgar and generally demeaning to the sport".

IMO, if a player wants to make money playing five overs matches in the buff in a roadside show, its his business. All they are doing now is playing for their country, but making money through their own images.

I think this is how Queen Victoria would have run cricket. Nobody told them that times have now changed!!

 

[Neil Pickup]

I mentioned this Sahara/SAA thing in a previous post.

Sahara should tell the ICC to go stick it where the sun doesn't shine. This is getting stupid.

All it's going to do in the long run is drive sponsors away and drag cricket back down again.

I was thinking it seemed similar to Packer, thanks for showing why.

unjustifiable and unreasonable depriving the players from having important means of making their living and in fact that the public would be deprived of the opportunity of watching such players in action

Sums it up perfectly. The ICC can go stick it.

 

[scorpio]

F_L and NP: This is a topic close to my heart. I think a lot of blame has to go to dalmiya. But malcolm speed and co are the worst bastards i have ever known.

While they want the indian cash cow...they want all the benefits to go to icc and not the the member nations. I guess the plan is then to funnel all the money thro ICC there by reducing the clout of individual nations. (Read:Subcontinent)

I beleive the board will force the players to keel over. But this is not working in the long run. This type of ethic less ambush marketing will force the sponsors to look some where.

Btw does anyone think this whole drame is just a continuing power struggle between dalmiya and the ICC ?

 

[full_length]

Niel I just found that thread (where you mentioned Sahara). Should I have continued on that one? Surprised to see that one ended with "India have agreed to sign"
This reminds me- I have very strong criticism to make of the media for a curious syndrome of misinformation, lacklusture coverage, and inconsistency that has accompanied this particular sequence of events. Lets leave that for another day. Ofcourse, you could go take a look at BBC, and Times of India (try www.samachar.com -has links to both). Once you start matching dates, news, and events things get interesting..

Scorpio, why blame Dalmiya? In this present scenario he has absolutely no way to get the players what they deserve. All he can do is to minimise damages right now. If the ICC doesnt give way, he has to ensure that India will be represented in the cup, or they will surely violate some half a dozen vague contracts.
But before entirely absolving Dalmiya and the BCCI of their possible contribution to this mess, we really must know when that clause was added. (I've seen the contract somewhere.. I'll try to get hold of it.)
Dalmiya had strongly opposed to the offending clause(s) in July this year when it was sent to them to be ratified. The players' angst at being treated like mindless lackeys is understood. IMO, the BCCI wasn't really treated much better if the clause was added any time after it was signed by the BCCI last year.

I thought that after this administration, both in the board, and in the team has taken over, things have started to look up where it comes to player- board relations. The beurocracy will remain, as will the desire of many administrators to reduce the players to servility. But surely you can't miss the change in attitudes.

On 'all benefits going to the ICC', yes, that was my take too- they are being unbelievably greedy and aren't bothering to pretend that they respect for morality any more.
That cash or country statement must be the single most hypocritic, idiotic, unrealistic trash I have heard in a while now. I heard Speed talk on this subject, and he was worse than ridiculous. He spoke as an Aussie, not as a ICC admin. We can discuss this later. In the current scenario, I dont even think that being out of international cricket is more painfull than continuing to receive such second class treatment as we have been receiving for a while now.

The governing body has no business to be in business; nor are they within their rights to wontonly pick up fights with players, and boards world over. So far they have failed cricket miserably. I would rather that the ICC be scrapped and a more fair and representative body of cricket be formed- one which places paramount importance to cricket and the players, international, and domestic over personal ego trips and completely eschew the ICC's century-old approach to the game and administration.
I want Zimbabwe and Bangladesh to have as much voice as England and Australia. And I want a younger administration- more savvy than this current bunch of losers.
I know this is a little like ranting... but really, I'm worse than furious at the turn of events. This issue is likely close to many many cricket fans' hearts around the world. (I don't think the Indian fans will be the only ones upset about this.) You don't suppose the ICC knows or cares, do you?
But know that they SHOULD care, because Pepsi pays the ICC money because they know that I (the regular cricket fans on the street) watch the match, and they hope we will go and buy their product. Hero Honda wants me to buy their bikes and that's why they are paying ICC all this money.
Which is why I want the televisions off. Let them know that they are not owners of the game- they are caretakers, and should stay within that framework.


Yes it has something to do with ICC's anathema towards Dalmiya. However, I wouldn't term it a power struggle. The richest board in the world is completely powerless now. They don't have any friends in the ICC (the Dubai ruling was 12-1 against India), and the asian bloc was at best a temporary solution. It was never going to last- EVEN if Indian govt. had allowed Indo-Pak tours.

I was hoping the Sri Lankan players would stick to their stand and therefore embarass the ICC big time (the knockout is to be staged in Lanka). But they must have been cooerced backstage (or bought). Agnew (I think) said that some 60% of the Lankan players' money comes from one tea company whose presence Pepsi strongly opposes (they figure tea is a soft drink and so will amount to ambushing Pepsi ads :rolleyes: ).

 

[Neil Pickup]

Nice long post F_L...

"Cash or Country" could also be translated as "'Honour your Contracts and Agreements' or 'Follow the ICC's Autocracy and to Hell with Individuals'". That's how I see it anyway.

The ICC's Old Boys' Club needs another strong shot in the arm like old Kerry gave it back in 1977. It cannot treat people like this. Same for the ECB/Surrey Old Boys' Club but that's a totally different issue for another thread.

Sponsorship money drives cricket at the top level. Gate Receipts on their own aren't enough for the game to live off, and India is its major source. Isolate them and you lay the foundations for your own mausoleum.

An Indian stand would cause the ICC severe problems. Half (that's a guess) of World Cricket Revenue comes from India and the rest of the Nations would struggle without it. We're in the 21st Century.

And as for Pepsi vs Dalmah Tea. Yeah, right. There's no competition there, at all. Completely different market. "Oh no, your bikinis are competing with my swimming trunks". You get the picture.

 

[full_length]

Yes I get the picture

Now take a look at thisss...
Normally I look down on all these kinds of reports of somebody telling the media they 'are considering' moving court, or 'may sue' etc. - usually you don't see many of them turn up at the courtrooms do you
But somehow this one inspires some confidence. ICC may be able to wriggle out of this one, but not without grinding it's nose on the ground a little bit...hope the BCCI gives the high-and-mighty council 'unstinted support'. Afterall they're 'part of a family'

Note in particular the reference to the BCCI putting its foot down on some players opting for a photoshoot in SA. (For what company?anyone?). Also the BCCI's response referring to the obstinacy of the players :rolleyes:

The ICC and BCCI can go take a flying #@%$

(Dunno what this board's policy is about 1)copy and paste and 2) middle fingers..
let me know if either is a problem )

Indian players may move court if left out of team


PTI [ TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 03, 2002 7:49:03 PM ]

LONDON: Unwilling to budge from their stand that they will not sign the ICC contract, the Indian players are said to be contemplating legal action against the game's governing body.


If there is no solution to the stand-off between them and the cricketing authorities and if they are consequently omitted from the Indian team for the mini World Cup in Sri Lanka later this month, players may move court, team sources said.


The effort would be to seek an injunction against the ICC and stop the September 12-29 Champions Trophy, from taking place.


Since the ICC headquarters is in London, players have been advised that they have a good chance of securing a favourable verdict from the court.


A senior member of the Indian team said, even if they were to stop shy of going to the court, their sponsors would be more than willing to drag the official bodies in court to protect their interests.


"It would be absolutely impossible for us to change our stance at this stage," said the cricketer.


The players can not understand why they were informed about the objectionable "ambush marketing" clause only in July this year, when the matter was agreed upon and signed between BCCI and ICC at least 14 months ago.


"The cricket authorities should have taken note of the fact that Sachin Tendulkar was entering into a separate television contract in July -- a deal which could impinge on the television rights of the ICC events," the cricketer said.


The senior cricketer also wondered why BCCI did not react when a rival electronics company signed up seven Indian cricketers, again putting them at odds with a major ICC sponsor.


"The BCCI had the intelligence to warn cricketers of fatigue and tiredness when they were about to tour South Africa for a commercial shoot in June -- but they could as well have cautioned the cricketers their company was in direct conflict with a major ICC sponsor," he said.


Cricket Board chief Jagmohan Dalmiya, had written two letters to the team yesterday in an effort to persuade them to play in the Champions Trophy promising to sort out the sponsorship issue with the game's apex body at a later stage.


TNN adds from Kolkata: Reacting to this proposed move by the players, board president Jagmohan Dalmiya feels the Indian players are being ¡°provoked by their sponsors¡±.


¡°I wouldn¡¯t be surprised if the players were being provoked by their sponsors. It seems to be a deep-routed plan,¡± Dalmiya said adding: ¡°I am sure the players would not have been such an obdurate bunch had they been on their own.¡¯¡¯ What has angered him most is the Indians¡¯ reluctance to reply to the president¡¯s letter sent Monday evening.

 

[full_length]

Directly on the topic:
http://headlines.sify.com/1197news3.html?headline=We're~with~you,~Indians~tell~cricketers

One line in that article sounds sweet.

A whopping 80 percent of viewers in a poll conducted by a local television station backed captain Sourav Ganguly and his team for refusing to sign agreements with the International Cricket Council (ICC).

Another was interesting:

The Indian players received unexpected support from their South African counterparts, who have also reportedly rejected the ICC contracts.

And then Kapil and Kirti Azad launch yet another tirade against the incompetent callous council for cricket.
Happy to see that Indians are making themselves heard over the suffocating silence of the BCCI.

 

[Anil]

The Indian fans probably won't turn off the TV, although without the stars, viewership will come down considerably. They are too passionate about cricket to completely ignore the tournament. Also, they would want to know how some of the future hopefuls like Gambhir and Balaji handle their entry into the international scene.

 

[royGilchrist]

Are they trying to direct all the money in cricket to the ICC and then distribute it to the boards- communist style?

Actually this is called revenue sharing in american professional sports, and is one of the main reasons for the success of american sports. This is one of the reasons why the disparity between the rich teams (NY, LA) and poor teams (small cities) is reduced, and small teams have a realistic chance of winning, hence making for a more evenly contested game.

But in this context, I think you guys are right, this is just a way of taking a share of the pie. Especially since the history of ICC is so dark, and spineless, they themsleves need to take some revolutionary steps and make ICC a truly unbiased body and only then can they do reforms of this kind.

But if the whole Kerry Packer affair is an indication, then circket would come out of this crisis, better than before, like it did after Packer cricket.

Maybe this is the time, that players like Sunny, Imran, Ian Chappell, Tony Greig, Holding etc should just make their own governing body, contract all the top players, and dump ICC and all the rest of the govenrning bodies. Packer or Murdoch or Bukhatar or someone else might be willing to provide monetary help

 

[scorpio]

Looks like the Team might go to court. (From the latest news)

My respect for ganguly, kumble goes up every day.

 

[full_length]

Well the conclusion of the drama seems to have come about. Check this out:
http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/sep/09champs.htm (article posted below for convenience: from rediff.com)

So a pertinent question may be: what the heck did ICC get after all this?? The players have given some slack, temporarily -they wont do this for the WC.
BCCI ensured that they wont be held responsible for any 'damages'. So now, we have a situation where NOBODY is happy! The 'official sponsors' don't get:
1) their promised 6 mths of image rights, 2)no thirty days of official monopoly before the tournament and 3) only 16 or 17 days of official monopoly after the event.
The personal sponsors for the players are restricted for the period of the ICC trophy and the 16/17 days after it.
The players have been subjected to lots of undue pressure, and may have lost some prospective sponsors because of this ICC's inept handling of the issue.
The ICC doesnt get what it wants and may even have to cough up some money to the official sponsors.
The BCCI lost a motion 11-1 in Dubai which must be a setback to intercountry cricketing relations, atleast temporarily. But having forced the ICC to agree not to fine them, they have come out of this as the least damaged party.

Full-strength India squad for Champions Trophy

Sachin Tendulkar and all of India's leading cricketers have been picked for the Champions Trophy, starting in Sri Lanka on Thursday, thus ending the long-running sponsorship wrangle.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India on Monday named a full-strength squad, with Sourav Ganguly as captain, for the September 12-29 tournament following a global teleconference with the International Cricket Council and other Test-playing nations.

The row, which centred around the conflicting rights of the official tournament sponsors and the players' personal sponsors, had threatened the biggest one-day event outside the World Cup.

The ICC last week appeared to have resolved the crisis after brokering a compromise with the India players, only for the BCCI to reject it.

But BCCI president Jagmohan Dalmiya agreed to the compromise at the eleventh hour after the ICC said his board would not have to foot the bill if it is later sued by sponsors linked to the Champions Trophy.

"After discussion for an hour and 45 minutes, it has been agreed upon that all financial consequences arising out of the Champions Trophy will be borne by the ICC," Dalmiya told reporters.

"We are quite happy about it. A full-strength squad will represent India in the tournament."

The 14-member team announced by Dalmiya includes Sourav Ganguly, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag, Dinesh Mongia, Mohd Kaif, Yuvraj Singh, Ajit Agarkar, Zaheer Khan, Ashish Nehra, V V S Laxman, Jai Prakash Yadav, Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh.

 

[full_length]

OK, this has some better information on the end result of the dispute
It's from the Indian Express.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=14567