• 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 rights goto espn star for $1.1 billion!!

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
LA ICE-E said:
how are they crap? the champions trophy is crap... true that...but then you have the world cup/ womens world cup and the twenty20 championship i dont they are crap:sleep:
All crap, to me. There are 97 members...about 70 of them will never do anything at the international levels, so all that money just goes into a black hole.
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
LA ICE-E said:
its a non profit organisation so most of its money will be distrubitated to its members as they make the icc
He he. Non-profit organisation just means they need to find ways to spend money so that they end up with £0 on the bottom line.

Works well for FIFA.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
All crap, to me. There are 97 members...about 70 of them will never do anything at the international levels, so all that money just goes into a black hole.
Quite an idiotic comment in my opinion. Should the ICC just stop funding cricket in countries other than the test nations. And by my count, you feel that only 17 other members will do anything at the international level, how do the ICC decide whom to fund and whom to cut off?
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
silentstriker said:
All crap, to me. There are 97 members...about 70 of them will never do anything at the international levels, so all that money just goes into a black hole.
ah more people will play the game....thats the point of spreading the game...so it doesn't die ever....because just being played in 10 countries its not going to survive in the long time....and to make it a gobal game..fifa has like 200+ members and of them like 70 or so does any thing(good atleast) at the international level still they give money to every member...its really about spreading the game and preserving a future for it...
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
LA ICE-E said:
ah more people will play the game....thats the point of spreading the game...so it doesn't die ever....because just being played in 10 countries its not going to survive in the long time....and to make it a gobal game..fifa has like 200+ members and of them like 70 or so does any thing(good atleast) at the international level still they give money to every member...its really about spreading the game and preserving a future for it...
Dead on with that post there.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
So, in all the years of cricket, how many countries has it 'spread' to? Every country that plays it was a former colony or at least a European stronghold. I.E, a bunch of white guys played it and showed it to the natives while they were ruling the country.

It's not a global game. Important thing is to keep it alive and grow it in places where it is already popular. Its not a game that people can like instantly - it takes a while, and thats why it won't take off.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
nightprowler10 said:
Yup, I still remember when China declared independence from Great Britain. :)
Ah, good ol' china. If it succeeds, thats one out 90 that made it. And guess what? Even if they do (which I doubt), it won't be because ICC funded it. It will be because China themselves created the infrastructure and the interest.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
silentstriker said:
Ah, good ol' china. If it succeeds, thats one out 90 that made it. And guess what? Even if they do (which I doubt), it won't be because ICC funded it. It will be because China themselves created the infrastructure and the interest.
china was able to make the insfrastucture with the millions ICC and the ACC been giving them...plus some help from the government...:sleep:
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
Ah, good ol' china. If it succeeds, thats one out 90 that made it. And guess what? Even if they do (which I doubt), it won't be because ICC funded it. It will be because China themselves created the infrastructure and the interest.
Fair point. The ICC had a role in it, but probably not big enough. Either way, I don't think its justifiable to cut off funding from the nations where the ICC don't see immediate success. Note that the ICC's plans for developing cricket haven't been in place long enough to see real success.

Also your point in your earlier post about European strongholds is not an apt one. The only European "colonizers" that played cricket were the British. So any nations where cricket became popular, besides the ones that were colonized by Britain, were affected by the 'spread' of cricket. I'm not sure how many islands in the WI were colonized by the British, but that might be a good example.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
nightprowler10 said:
Fair point. The ICC had a role in it, but probably not big enough. Either way, I don't think its justifiable to cut off funding from the nations where the ICC don't see immediate success. Note that the ICC's plans for developing cricket haven't been in place long enough to see real success.

Also your point in your earlier post about European strongholds is not an apt one. The only European "colonizers" that played cricket were the British. So any nations where cricket became popular, besides the ones that were colonized by Britain, were affected by the 'spread' of cricket. I'm not sure how many islands in the WI were colonized by the British, but that might be a good example.
West Indies had been playing Test cricket long long before the ICC, and secondly, it was also due to the English:

English slaves in the West Indies were emancipated in the year 1838. Emancipation brought to an end an institution that had helped England bring one quarter of the world's land mass under British rule. In the West Indies during this time, the two largest groups were the newly-freed Africans, who made up the laboring class, and the white plantation owners who formed the islands' aristocracies. The African population prior to slavery not only performed the role of wealth-makers for the white, land-owning plantocracy, but also provided a metaphorical blackness onto which the plantocracy could project their whiteness. The resulting juxtaposition went a long way in alleviating the anxiety of the white land-owners who were constantly reminded of their location at the farthest reaches of the English empire, of civilization. For the planter class, wealth was not enough. There was the constant need to be reminded that they were a distinct race separate from the Africans in their midsts. Through the use of stereotypes and other forms of hegemonic control, the plantocracy learned to survive life at the edge of civilization. White was much whiter when juxtaposed against the black population.

Once the slaves were emancipated, cricket became the new cultural institution by which England sought to socialize the populations and reinforce hierarchies in its colonies.
-http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Cricket.html
 

brockley

International Captain
They will cover the under 19 world cups good stuff,we will see the next champions of the future.
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
nightprowler10 said:
I'm not sure how many islands in the WI were colonized by the British, but that might be a good example.
Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bay Islands (briefly), British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica (from 1655), Montserrat, Saint Croix (briefly), Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago (from 1797) and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The only one of those which doesn't play cricket at a reasonable standard is Belize - the only other islands to play serious cricket are Montserrat, Sint Maarten and US Virgin Islands.

There's a reason the Dominican Republic and Cuba, both Spanish colonies and later completely in the US sphere of influence as Spain collapsed, is mad about baseball.

Netherlands, Denmark and Argentina are pretty much the only non-British-Empire states to play the game at a reasonable level, and in the two European countries the game enjoys a status about level with curling. Don't know about Argentina, but I would expect fourth division football and equestrian to be ahead of it.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
Samuel_Vimes said:
Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bay Islands (briefly), British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica (from 1655), Montserrat, Saint Croix (briefly), Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago (from 1797) and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The only one of those which doesn't play cricket at a reasonable standard is Belize - the only other islands to play serious cricket are Montserrat, Sint Maarten and US Virgin Islands.

There's a reason the Dominican Republic and Cuba, both Spanish colonies and later completely in the US sphere of influence as Spain collapsed, is mad about baseball.

Netherlands, Denmark and Argentina are pretty much the only non-British-Empire states to play the game at a reasonable level, and in the two European countries the game enjoys a status about level with curling. Don't know about Argentina, but I would expect fourth division football and equestrian to be ahead of it.
Thank you for further rubbing it in my face...:dry:
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Expansionist plans are all good and well, but it has not spread to a single country due to the ICC, and I think that money could be put to better use in the test playing countries.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
silentstriker said:
So, in all the years of cricket, how many countries has it 'spread' to? Every country that plays it was a former colony or at least a European stronghold. I.E, a bunch of white guys played it and showed it to the natives while they were ruling the country.

It's not a global game. Important thing is to keep it alive and grow it in places where it is already popular. Its not a game that people can like instantly - it takes a while, and thats why it won't take off.
ah test might not but the sixes will then twenty20 will then odi and eventually to tests... Netherlands, Kenya, Nepal, and Argentina have established amateur club competitions in countries and they have no relation to the colonies.....and in all those years it was just england australia and south africa when the icc was born and in all those years they now have 10 test playing nations and they weren't even like they are now ..look at rugby its been expanding alot in the recent years and pretty soon cricket will too...hell you are wrong... out of those 97 members most of them compete in their regional competions to qualify for the world cup qualifier and did you hear about the world cricket league? you should look into that...just because the games are ODI status doesn't mean they aren't international and 6 more teams have and are going to have ODI status after everyqualifier....you should look into the positive the ICC is doing instead of just nagging about it
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
silentstriker said:
Expansionist plans are all good and well, but it has not spread to a single country due to the ICC, and I think that money could be put to better use in the test playing countries.
Haha, yet people complain that too much is being spent on test nations and not enough on the associates. Personally I think if any test nations' infrastructure is screwed up it is due to their own mismanagement, not lack of funds. I doubt there is any test nation whose board is strapped for cash, except maybe WICB.
 

LA ICE-E

State Captain
silentstriker said:
Expansionist plans are all good and well, but it has not spread to a single country due to the ICC, and I think that money could be put to better use in the test playing countries.
how much money does you indian board need? they have the most icc doesn't get any money from the one day and test series...those money goes to the board who uses the money in whatever way...countries who doesn't yet have alot of cricket players are getting some money to intrest people into cricket...it doesn't have to expand due to the ICC but it surely is helping it without the icc i dont think it would...
 

Top