Is ICC motivated by sheer greed ?

[JASON]

Here's a link to news item on Cricinfo http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/244010.html where Bill Frindall the veteran statistician has attacked the ICC as being motivated by sheer greed in its staging of the Super series and the interference with cricket laws (such as Super Subs/Power plays etc.), while Mathew Engel the Editor of Wisden http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/244098.html has attacked ICC on its Global ambitions and elevation of regional tournaments to Internationals for the sake of globalisation and the HOLY DOLLAR .

I want CW members opinion on what they think -

Do you think the ICC has gone too far lately in chasing the Dollar at the expense of the game itself and its values.

 

[open365]

The ICC are a completely joke.

They are not in touch with modern cricketers or fans, if they were, they wouldn't schedule so many meanignless ODI series.

Then again, it shouldn't come as a suprise if the current schedule stays as it is, they managed to ignore Zimbabwe ever since they were formed.

 

[steds]

Oops. I voted no by accident.

 

[silentstriker]

The ICC is a non-profit organization, so no they are not motivated by greed.
Ehsan Mani doesn't make $10million more if they sign a lucrative TV contract. What they are motivated by is their ridiculous and theoretical idea of 'expanding' cricket, at all costs...at the expense of exiciting competitive cricket. Thats what's doing them in.

 

[GotSpin]

The ICC have the right motive but just completely screw it up

 

[Autobahn]

Actually a situation from what's happening in baseball at the moment reflects what's happening to the ICC.

The baseball chief who's elected by the owners of the baseball teams has announced that he's setting up an inquiry into the use of drugs in the sport but unfortunley he's messed up by including several people who still have business intrests in the baseball league, and the pundit summed it up by saying "the guy's got the right ideas for baseball but he's so clumsy and awkward in putting it into action."

And i think that's what the ICC is like, it has the right ideas, putting money back into smaller countries via ICC competitions, competitions for the smaller countries, adopting popular games like 20/20, trying to breathe new life in ODIs via new rules.

But a lot of ideas tend to be badly excuted, the new rules added little to ODI's and made them even more unbalanced then before, the Super series while a good idea on paper failed because the aussies had already been beaten and had no real meaning for any of the players, the ICC competitions themselves have been accused of being badly placed and unpopular and has been badly undermimed by Zim tailspin and India's power-gabbing.

But at the end of the day i don't think anyone could do much better, not to say there isn't room for improvement but i feel critics are too quick to criticise and slow to offer helpful suggestions IMHO.

 

[silentstriker]

The ICC have the right motive but just completely screw it up

Exactly. Greed is a misleading word. Its not greed in terms of stocking ICC's coffers. All ICC makes gets redistributed out, no one at the ICC makes $10mil from an event. Greed in terms of trying to expand cricket too much, too fast at the expense of good meaningful games?

Yea, probably.

 

[andyc]

Yeah I agree with silentstriker. Way too much cricket right now.

 

[open365]

Actually a situation from what's happening in baseball at the moment reflects what's happening to the ICC.

The baseball chief who's elected by the owners of the baseball teams has announced that he's setting up an inquiry into the use of drugs in the sport but unfortunley he's messed up by including several people who still have business intrests in the baseball league, and the pundit summed it up by saying "the guy's got the right ideas for baseball but he's so clumsy and awkward in putting it into action."

And i think that's what the ICC is like, it has the right ideas, putting money back into smaller countries via ICC competitions, competitions for the smaller countries, adopting popular games like 20/20, trying to breathe new life in ODIs via new rules.

But a lot of ideas tend to be badly excuted, the new rules added little to ODI's and made them even more unbalanced then before, the Super series while a good idea on paper failed because the aussies had already been beaten and had no real meaning for any of the players, the ICC competitions themselves have been accused of being badly placed and unpopular and has been badly undermimed by Zim tailspin and India's power-gabbing.

But at the end of the day i don't think anyone could do much better, not to say there isn't room for improvement but i feel critics are too quick to criticise and slow to offer helpful suggestions IMHO.

The ICC have been a constant force of inadequacy for ages. They never act in the best intrests of the game, it's not rocket science.

The ICC somehow manage to muck-up every situation they are faced with, look at the Zimbabwe incident, the new ODI rules and video umpiring.

The amount of cricket they pack into the international schedule is crazy, i can't believe the international game is governed by an board who are just so bad at everything.

 

[Richard]

If Matthew Engel was in charge of ICC maybe we'd see a bit less of a joke organisation.
Trouble is, of course, people like him are highly unlikely to get into the position.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

If Matthew Engel was in charge of ICC maybe we'd see a bit less of a joke organisation.
Trouble is, of course, people like him are highly unlikely to get into the position.

I don't think I'd like an organisation who's content with seeing 8 nations in Test cricket for ever.

Yes, I know that isn't what he's saying, but he's implying that the sport is one of the British Empire and should stay that way. No attempt to even recognise the development efforts in the Netherlands - more vans in their cricket team than in the football team - nor Kenya, nor Nepal - just dismissing their efforts with "expanding world cricket is just talk".

 

[Richard]

I haven't actually read the Notes yet, I wasn't referring to that - simply that Matthew Engel is quite the sanest writer on cricket I've ever read, and that he regularly makes many good points about how ICC have got things wrong, as opposed to the TdL style of just throwing as many attacks as he can.

 

[JASON]

The Vote is 18-6 ATM given Steds's acknowledgement that he had voted no by mistake.

 

[JASON]

The ICC is a non-profit organization, so no they are not motivated by greed.

The ICC may be a non-profit organisation but who are they accountable to.

There are lot of people wallowing in the swill of the Gravey Train much akin to the little mafia that controls the appointments and positions within the UN. People are appointed based on their loyalty to the people who appoint them. So they can look after each other's backs.

And Greed does not necessarily mean personal greed. It may be greed in terms of securing their positions long term and their fat cat salaries and perks (as in the case of Mal Speed) or looking after interests of their country over others or at the expense of others.

Ehsan Mani doesn't make $10million more if they sign a lucrative TV contract.

In referring to the current bosses I was not particularly referring to Mani who as President has only fixed term of office. I was referring to others in the ICC hierarchy including Speed.

 

[Robertinho]

I just think they are failing in fulfilling the role that they should be doing - maintaining and bettering the standard of cricket and protecting it from being overly commercial.

 

[Matt79]

The ICC Champions Cup is a joke. Its a totally meaningless money spinner and I think India were justified in not being delighted about hosting it. Maybe continue to hold it but excuse the big teams, to give the little guys a shot. Perhaps with an incentive of some kind of automatic bonus at the next world cup for the winner.

 

[Autobahn]

The ICC Champions Cup is a joke. Its a totally meaningless money spinner and I think India were justified in not being delighted about hosting it. Maybe continue to hold it but excuse the big teams, to give the little guys a shot. Perhaps with an incentive of some kind of automatic bonus at the next world cup for the winner.

Well you've basically described the ICC trophy.

 

[Matt79]

So why have two?

 

[Langeveldt]

It's just joke after joke after joke.. The problem is they deal with peoples livelihoods and thats the tragedy.. I'd love to offer some suggestions as to how they could improve, but I dont want to be sitting here for the rest of the day typing