• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

ICC gone to far!!!!!!!!!

Blewy

Cricketer Of The Year
This time it has...
They have stopped Pakistani spinner Saqlain Mushtaq from placing a sticker on his bat advertising the Ben Hollioake foundation...

IMO this has to be the biggest joke they have ever come out with, the sticker was no bigger than the allowed size for bat sponsership but they have deemed it not suitable...

I just cannot believe that they would stop someone advertising a CHARITY!!!

Great work International Clown Council!!!!!
:(!:(!:(!:(!:(!:(!:(!:(!:(!
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hmmmmmmmmm.......................pretty sad. Maybe we should start an online petition to protest against this, eh? I'd be behind it. We could send a URL to everyone we know to vote and it might have the added bonus of increased traffic for the site! :D

What does everyone think?
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You'd be surprised, GB.......maybe we'd get a personal message from Saqlain!
 

Blewy

Cricketer Of The Year
ok TC if u want to get it up and running, im sure everyone here will sign it so that would give us a couple of Hundred...
 

Simon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
thats pretty poor.
The ICC are a laughing stock, they cant run the game, they change the rules every 5 minutes and they allow someone who doesnt even bowl the bowl to play and will probably retire with more test wickets than anyone.
Just show me the dotted line and ill sign.
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
You'll be well advised to keep from dragging the Murali issue, however blurred, in here.
On that I would take issue at the ICC allowing the likes of Hair, Harper, and Emerson to continue officiating in test cricket. But this issue is not about that. Don't obfuscate it - you may sidetrack a worthy cause.

Greg Blewett, can you please pass on a link or sources for more information on this?
I'll sign a petition, and do more if necessary.

[Edited on 17/10/2002 by full_length]
 

Simon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Originally posted by full_length
You'll be well advised to keep from dragging the Murali issue, however blurred, in here.
On that I would take issue at the ICC allowing the likes of Hair, Harper, and Emerson to continue officiating in test cricket. But this issue is not about that. Don't obfuscate it - you may sidetrack a worthy cause.

Greg Blewett, can you please pass on a link or sources for more information on this?
I'll sign a petition, and do more if necessary.

[Edited on 17/10/2002 by full_length]
I needed an example to back up my claim that the members of the ICC have no balls and couldnt run a game of school yard cricket without stuffing it up somewhere.
But on the Saqlain Mushtaq issue they have really stuffed up. They are quickly ruining our game.
If this issue gets out in the media too much it will detract sponsors.
What do you think Pepsi officials are thinking about the issue right now?
 

Blewy

Cricketer Of The Year
Ok here is the article in which it was reported..
Its from the BBC website, although there was talk about it on the radio this morning, I have since contacted the station and have spoken to the broadcaster he has said that if we get a petition up and running they would announce it on the station....

Anyway heres the story!!!

ICC bans Hollioake 'adverts'


Pakistan's Saqlain Mushtaq has been ordered to remove stickers from his Test bat displaying the Ben Hollioake Fund because they are against cricket rules.

Surrey off-spinner Saqlain, 25, stuck the stickers on his bat in the first Test in Colombo against Australia to advertise the charity set up by Adam Hollioake in the wake of his younger brother's death earlier this year.

But International Cricket Council match referee Clive Lloyd ordered their removal for the second Test in Sharjah because they constituted advertising.

Both Saqlain and Adam Hollioake have foregone potential sponsorship deals with bat companies - worth £10,000-plus-a-year to each individual - in order to promote the charity, which raises money to help children with terminal illnesses.

However, ICC regulations state only bona fide bat manufacturers' can advertise on the top nine inches of the front and up to 50% of the area of the back of cricket bats used in international matches.

Surrey captain Hollioake appealed to the ICC over its stance but Saqlain will not be allowed to display the stickers for the third Test, which starts on Saturday.

"The rules and regulations are there and they are clear," said Hollioake.

"I just hoped that in this instance they could show some leniency to what is fundamentally a good cause."

Any logo or endorsement has to be cleared with ICC standard protocol.

Exception

The only current area of the bat available is a maximum six square inches on the back of the blade, made available within the last 12 months for players to maximise sponsorship earnings.

ICC spokesman Mark Harrison said: "We have had requests from other charities in the past and we have said the same to them - there are guidelines to be followed and we have to be consistent."

Now, the only potential option other than the expensive one of setting up a bat company in the charity's name, appears to be an appeal for support to the England and Wales Cricket Board.

If the ECB was to back the promotion of the Ben Hollioake Fund and gained support from other countries' boards, such as Pakistan, the ICC might make an exception.



[Edited on 17/10/2002 by Gregory Blewett]
 

Blewy

Cricketer Of The Year
So if someone can either start the petition or tell me how then we can really get some support 2morrow through the radio station!!!!
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
 

V Reddy

International Debutant
They may have rejected because they have rejected many charities advertising before. They thought that they can't show partiality towards only ben hollioke's charity. Also the rules state that only bat manufactures should advertise on bats. But i think they should be lenient towards charities and other good works.
 

Blewy

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah i understand that they have rejected other Charities, But its pretty ordinary for such a huge body to knock back charities, especially a charity for someone who served Cricket so well...

At this time cricket needs as much good publicity as it can get and im afraid that knocking back this charity has made them a laughing stock...

These adverts are non charitable and the players are getting nothing out of using up there sponsorship space to advertise them, so why should they be punished????
 

Gotchya

State Vice-Captain
Whats going on ? The ICC really has gone too far, whats with an advertisement for a charity ? surely that doesn't conflict with their sponsors does it ? ugly..........

Where's the petition ?
 

Blewy

Cricketer Of The Year
Im trying to get something organised so we can post it on Cricketweb...

but im not to sure how to go about it, if someone could help please let me know...
 

full_length

U19 Vice-Captain
rough..

Same here. Someone with some experience in doing this would be pretty usefull here..

For now, I thought we could try and put together what we want on the petition.

Let me try and beat a few points around.
See if you can cut things off, add points, and come up with something so we have something effective reasonably fast. I am going to intentionally draw this out, so we have several starting points to make a petition....




Like Greg said, Saqlain and Adam Hollioke dont gain anything from supporting the charity. Infact they lose money according to BBC.

Second, Ben Hollioke's unfortunate accident happened not long back. It's still fresh in public memory and it is natural that people who have played with or against him want to show their respects, albeit in a different manner than having black bands around their arms.

Third, making an 'exception' in this case will not hurt the ICC, unless they had a contract drawn up with a bat company. In the absence of such a contract, why Saqlain and Adam shouldn't be allowed to support a charity without offending any section of cricket followers anywhere in the world, is not very clear.

Fourth, making an exception is not new to the ICC. (we don't need too many examples. One will do for precedence) Dalmiya made an exception once so Shoiab Akhtar could play cricket.

Fifth, ICC's concerns about another charity making a request following this one is quite valid. However, it is our arguement that granting this will not imply that another charity that approaches the ICC can similarly claim an exception. A fundamental difference between this and other charities is that it is being raised in the name of Ben Hollioke, a cricketer whose unfortunate demise is still fresh in everyone's memory, and one of the players involved is his brother. If this had happened to an employee of a company, it wouldn't be very odd to see other employees supporting a cause in the name of the deceased. It surely doesnt mean that the company should/would support a neighbourhood charity. Similarly , there is a difference between this request and any other request from the odd church or spastic children's society.
At any rate, there is no move to make this charity officially recognised by the ICC.

Sixth, cricket fans expect ICC to run cricket, and also be a representative body for the game. An event where no party is hurt financially, and has popular support from cricket watchers around the world, shouldn't swept away in general garble about rules. It is important for rules in their spirit they are meant to be upheld. Steve Waugh's support for Udayan has been well documented. There also, cricket's image is being used. Cricket matches are played for benefit of players around the world. Surely there is room for discretion in this case where a charity for children with terminal illness is supported by two individuals, in an act not officially recognised by the teams or the ICC, without causing financial damage or ill-feeling for any party and one in which the players do not have any profit motive.

Rules may be used to prevent the players from supporting the charity, but clearly it is not beyond the ICC to use their discretionary powers- they have done it before and cricket followers support it.
 

royGilchrist

State 12th Man
Fifth, ICC's concerns about another charity making a request following this one is quite valid. However, it is our arguement that granting this will not imply that another charity that approaches the ICC can similarly claim an exception.
This is the most important point I think, precedence. I was a bit reluctant about this especially, as if ICC allow this once it sets a precedent and then others would come up with similar requests to promote charities. But as FL explained this is a special case where a cricketer lost his life, and this is a way for the cricket community to do something positive.

Having said that, I still cannot confidently oppose what ICC is doing, maybe I dont know enough about this issue, I still think that ICC are justifed in not making any exceptions in such cases.
 

Top