Sell-outs then IMO.
Of course not, at this rate it will turn into a better quality version then Kerry Packer's WSC in the late 70's. I guess money talks, as it has done through out history. Interestingly enough that one of the franchises will almost end up being the Australian team if the reports are to be ture.
From the article on these latest three joining:
I didn't take a lot of notice of the Twenty20 WC (mind you I was in Central Eastern Europe) so I don't know if I will for this competition.
The NZ players obviously signed that right away in their contracts. The Australian players might have done it differently.
If you are not interested in twenty20, I doubt that it will change your mind. Take a look at the roster though, this is going to be very good for the development of Indian twenty20 cricket if indeed, the limit of four overseas players per team and the quota of four U19 or players from the region to which the team is centralised (e.g. Manchester for Manchester United or London for Arsenal to use a football metaphor) is kept.
wikipedia said:
It just would not make sense for players to play for two teams who may meet in a future competition, surely.
Which one is the unofficial one? All these friggin' initials are confusing to us casual observers.
ICL.
