Packer Vs. Dalmiya

[silentstriker]

Test Cricket popularity is waning in India? Thats news to me. Its never been all that popular, but compared to most other countries, test are still pretty popular.

 

[marc71178]

The question I ask is what would Dalmiya have done for the World game had Packer not done what he did?

 

[R_D]

The question I ask is what would Dalmiya have done for the World game had Packer not done what he did?

its like what would happen to mathamtics field if indians hadn't invented the numerical numbering system.

 

[Sanz]

its like what would happen to mathamtics field if indians hadn't invented the numerical numbering system.

Hahaha !! That's an absolute gem from you R_D.

 

[C_C]

The question I ask is what would Dalmiya have done for the World game had Packer not done what he did?

That is quite irrelevant.
Otherwise impact on any venture would simply be a function of time. Its like saying 'what would newton have done without some dude who found the formula of (a+b)^2. Therefore, that dood > Newton.

 

[Jono]

Dalmiya's contribution to cricket whilst substantial in some areas, is sorely lacking in others.

With one other, he was responsible for securing the rights to 2 WCs for the sub-continent in the face of almost insurmountable odds. These 2 tournaments injected previously unheard of amounts into the game in that region.

He is credited with almost singlehandedly turning around the financial fortunes of both the ICC and the BCCI.

He is also credited with exponentially expanding the reach of the game into new markets.

However, the most compelling criticism of his tenure at both the ICC and the BCCI is what he did, or didnt do, with the game's new-found riches.

Take the BCCI for example. The world's richest cricketing body presides over a country where in 2006:

a. facilities are ordinary;

b. players are paid a miniscule proportion of the ruling body's revenue;

c. player development programs are substantially under-funded;

d. the Indian cricket team's playing contribution towards developing nations is pathetic; and

e. with the exception of India in ODIs, the popularity of the game is waning.

Packer's legacy is secure but it will be interesting to see in, say, 20 years, whether Dalmiya's contribution is regarded as positive or negative.

Evidence? Numbers? Facts?

Far out, you and CC can pull stuff out of your ass sometimes honestly.

 

[social]

Evidence? Numbers? Facts?

Far out, you and CC can pull stuff out of your ass sometimes honestly.

On 20 September 2006, BCCI announced that it would spend USD$347 million on bringing major grounds up to international standard

In 2004, BCCI spent more on executive salaries than on junior coaching

In 2004/5, BCCI agreed to a substantial increase in player payments as players not involved with the national team were barely able to subsist on existing payments

BCCI distributes16% of gross revenue to players whilst ACB, for example, distributes 25%

BCCI has had its' tax exempt status threatened on more than one occasion because the tax dept felt that it was being run as a business rather than for the good of the game

As per its' charter, BCCI only has to spend 75% of its' revnue on cricket-related activities

India has played a grand total of 3 tests vs Bangladesh and has point blank refused to play them in India

 

[Sanz]

BCCI distributes16% of gross revenue to players whilst ACB, for example, distributes 25%

Sure Sure, here is some information from Cricinfo :-

Under Dalmiya :-

1. BCCI had set aside 26% its earnings for player payments

2. Pension for Ex Players

 

[Sanz]

India has played a grand total of 3 tests vs Bangladesh and has point blank refused to play them in India

Dont forget that We also have played more tests and ODIs in Bangladesh than any other country except Zimbabwe.

 

[pasag]

Hmm, still not convinced.

 

[C_C]

BCCI distributes16% of gross revenue to players whilst ACB, for example, distributes 25%

As usual, your questionable attitude and misplaced sense of patriotism clouds your judgement.
This isnt about ACB vs BCCI. No no no. It is about Dalmiya and Packer.

In 2004, BCCI spent more on executive salaries than on junior coaching

I'd like you to tell us how much Packer spent on coaching.

Packer was nothing more and nothing less than a Vince McMahon of cricket. Zero input, just commercialisation of the sport. Well Dalmiya did that too buthe expanded the scope of the game by generating revenue for the game rather than through the game. There is a helluva difference.

 

[C_C]

India has played a grand total of 3 tests vs Bangladesh and has point blank refused to play them in India

Quite hypocritical, comming from a rabid fan of a team (Australia) that is KNOWN not just today or yesterday but through entire history of international cricket as to the side that refuses to play the minnows the most.
Took you guys decades to play the Kiwis. One of the last, if not the last, major team to play Bangladesh,Zimbabwe and if memory serves me right, also Sri Lanka in test cricket.
In short, you got nothing but the usual pretentious and immaginary high ground.

 

[Sanz]

On 20 September 2006, BCCI announced that it would spend USD$347 million on bringing major grounds up to international standard

And that's such a bad thing, isn't it ? How can BCCI even try to do that ?

In 2004, BCCI spent more on executive salaries than on junior coaching

And I thought BCCI positions were honorary.

In 2004/5, BCCI agreed to a substantial increase in player payments as players not involved with the national team were barely able to subsist on existing payments

And that must be a bad thing, isn't it ?

BCCI has had its' tax exempt status threatened on more than one occasion because the tax dept felt that it was being run as a business rather than for the good of the game

If you are going to make this kind of claim, please be truthful and report the entire story. Govt of India proposed to withraw tax exemption from all sporting institutions and not just BCCI alone.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2002/03/10/stories/2002031001200300.htm
Also read - http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135046.html

As per its' charter, BCCI only has to spend 75% of its' revnue on cricket-related activities

From teh above link :-

"...As of now, BCCI was required to spend 75 per cent of its annual earnings on the game itself or accumulate and spend the aggregate of such amount over five years. The balance 25 per cent was free reserves. Consequent upon the amendment, there shall be no income tax-exempted free reserve."...

 

[archie mac]

Packer in a canter.

With a billion people most of whom are made about cricket, and an economy which is growing faster then most, your telling me that no one would ever have decided to play a WC there?

In Aust. before Packer most players retired at 30, except for those who served in WW1 or WW2, as they missed out on playing in their prime they tended to go on longer.

Bradman was set to retire after the next series in Aust. 1939-40 but for the war

 

[C_C]

Packer in a canter.

With a billion people most of whom are made about cricket, and an economy which is growing faster then most, your telling me that no one would ever have decided to play a WC there?

In Aust. before Packer most players retired at 30, except for those who served in WW1 or WW2, as they missed out on playing in their prime they tended to go on longer.

Bradman was set to retire after the next series in Aust. 1939-40 but for the war

On the contrary, i think its Dalmiya by a canter.
How much improvement did Packer bring forth in development of the game in Australia, let alone rest of the world ? Nada. Zilch. Zip.
Under Dalmiya however, not only was cricket's financial potential realised far more robustly than under Packer, actual money and resources went to develop the game at grassroot levels- not just in India or the subcontinent but in all ICC affiliate nations.
Besides, you are forgetting that cricket's commercialisation began before Indian economy kicked in high gear (which was around 97-98, while cricket's boom begain in the late 80s/early 90s largely through Dalmiya).
This link provides a chronological order of Dalmiya's contribution to cricket. It is written in a patronising style but the facts and figures are in there - under Dalmiya, Indian cricket alone went from being a 1 million dollar a year tv rights venture to 300 million. That is umm a 30000% jump. How much did ACB's fortunes jump under Packer ?
Oh thats right- Packer nearly bankrupted cricket by robbing its stars and starting a rebel club- much like wrestling and vince McMahon or boxing and Don King. Packer was a promoter- Dalmiya not just a promoter but also a developer.

 

[archie mac]

On the contrary, i think its Dalmiya by a canter.
How much improvement did Packer bring forth in development of the game in Australia, let alone rest of the world ? Nada. Zilch. Zip.
Under Dalmiya however, not only was cricket's financial potential realised far more robustly than under Packer, actual money and resources went to develop the game at grassroot levels- not just in India or the subcontinent but in all ICC affiliate nations.
Besides, you are forgetting that cricket's commercialisation began before Indian economy kicked in high gear (which was around 97-98, while cricket's boom begain in the late 80s/early 90s largely through Dalmiya).
This link provides a chronological order of Dalmiya's contribution to cricket. It is written in a patronising style but the facts and figures are in there - under Dalmiya, Indian cricket alone went from being a 1 million dollar a year tv rights venture to 300 million. That is umm a 30000% jump. How much did ACB's fortunes jump under Packer ?
Oh thats right- Packer nearly bankrupted cricket by robbing its stars and starting a rebel club- much like wrestling and vince McMahon or boxing and Don King. Packer was a promoter- Dalmiya not just a promoter but also a developer.

I think you will find ODI cricket took off in India after the 1983 WC, so anyone with half a brain would have played a WC their sooner rather then later, or though he was the first, so well done.

Money for TV rights in Sport has jumped right around the World, Aussie Rules being a prime example even in a tiny market like Aust. So I hardly think he should get all the credit for that.

Packer put up his own money, yes for profit, but since when is profit a dirty word?

Even Packers toughest critics Blofeld for one, now have admitted that Packer was good for the game.

I think if this poll was taken by cricket experts we would still get the same result IE- a big win for the man in the stocking mask

 

[social]

As usual, your questionable attitude and misplaced sense of patriotism clouds your judgement.
This isnt about ACB vs BCCI. No no no. It is about Dalmiya and Packer.




I'd like you to tell us how much Packer spent on coaching.

Packer was nothing more and nothing less than a Vince McMahon of cricket. Zero input, just commercialisation of the sport. Well Dalmiya did that too buthe expanded the scope of the game by generating revenue for the game rather than through the game. There is a helluva difference.

The ACB was used by way of comparison. Chances are that the same result would've appeared if compared to say the ECB

I would hazard to guess that the financial input into the game that Packer made would be in the tens of millions of dollars

Personally, how much did Dalmiya contribute?

The difference between them is that Dalmiya is undoutedly a brilliant politician but he's first and foremost an administrator

Packer, on the other hand, writes the cheques that people like Dalmiya bank

 

[C_C]

I think you will find ODI cricket took off in India after the 1983 WC, so anyone with half a brain would have played a WC their sooner rather then later, or though he was the first, so well done.

Actually the subcontinent did have to fight pretty hard with the-then ICC to move the world cup out of India.You are talking with India today in mind- not when Dalmiya came into power and India was still a socialist economy.

Money for TV rights in Sport has jumped right around the World, Aussie Rules being a prime example even in a tiny market like Aust. So I hardly think he should get all the credit for that.

Except that i dont think any other sport recorded a thirty-thousand percent increase in revenue. Dalmiya has to get credit for that.

Packer put up his own money, yes for profit, but since when is profit a dirty word?

It isnt- however, it is a far cry from developing the sport which he gets credit for despite doing nothing at all for glassroot level or development of the game. Packer was good for the game- no doubt though. But Dalmiya was literally Godsent for the game.

 

[social]

Quite hypocritical, comming from a rabid fan of a team (Australia) that is KNOWN not just today or yesterday but through entire history of international cricket as to the side that refuses to play the minnows the most.
Took you guys decades to play the Kiwis. One of the last, if not the last, major team to play Bangladesh,Zimbabwe and if memory serves me right, also Sri Lanka in test cricket.
In short, you got nothing but the usual pretentious and immaginary high ground.

Check your facts - all test playing countries are party to an agreement that obligates them to play each other a certain no. of times, both home and away, in a predetermined period.

For whatever reason, the BCCI have ignored this in regards to Banladesh

 

[C_C]

Packer, on the other hand, writes the cheques that people like Dalmiya bank

Quite true.
Which is why i said Packer was a promoter- not a promoter-***-developer like Dalmiya is/was.
It doesnt matter whether you put in your own money or increase money by improving the fiscal plan of the business- what matters is expanding the business : Something that Dalmiya did far more than Packer. Dalmiya increased the revenue of cricket severalfold more tan Packer did. He made players richer several fold more than Packer did. He also brought the game to people's homes far more than Packer did. These are facts. What also matters is investment in the development nurserys that feed the business- Packer's contribution there is zilch, Dalmiya's is unparallelled.
There is no logical basis on saying Packer contributed as much to cricket as Dalmiya, let alone more. That is nothing more than propaganda that is not supportive of facts.