• 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.

Twenty20 Champions League confirmed

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
I saw Modi talking about this a couple of months ago and he said if there's a clash then the IPL team and the home team basically bid how much they want that player for the tournament, so if it's a key player for the IPL side then I doubt they'd be playing for their home team while at the same time they will still be generously compensated.
Well thats not the what that CSA, CA and ECB have been saying. Sutherland seem to make it out that Australian teams would have first choice of Australian players, no matter what. That was meant to be one of the big issues with Australian players signing contracts. But looking at what happened in South African Twenty20 comp, then I guess there is the option of other states/provinces/counties getting paid excessive amounts to use their players from IPL sides.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
It is possible that the Indian board will be generous towards ICL players after the success of IPL. It was also agreed, verbally, between the boards that foreign players will turn out for their local teams in the tournament. That undertaking was sought by the England and Australia boards at a meeting in Singapore.
So there.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
If they turn round to, say, Hampshire, and say "you can't play Bond because he played in the ICL" it's unethical because it gives English sides a lesser chance of victory. If you want a Champions League then all players from that side should play, or be allowed to play, otherwise the whole thing is pointless.

Obviously it's different when it comes to players who play for a couple of sides, and the approach being taken there is fair enough
Unethical?

The BCCI are the ones forking out the money, they're the ones organising it, if South Africa, England and Australia don't want to take part, they don't have to.

They want to because of the money, and hence should understand that the BCCI's interests should be respected.

None the less, refer to my above post, all this complaining looks to be for nothing.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
does Graeme Smith play for his SA team or his IPL team
Is the IPL due for a major makeover? We may see Watson going back to Tassie, Symonds returning to Queensland, Morkel and Steyn returning to their own teams and possibly even some Indian players headed abroad.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Is the IPL due for a major makeover? We may see Watson going back to Tassie, Symonds returning to Queensland, Morkel and Steyn returning to their own teams and possibly even some Indian players headed abroad.
Watson plays for QLD now.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Unethical?

The BCCI are the ones forking out the money, they're the ones organising it, if South Africa, England and Australia don't want to take part, they don't have to.

They want to because of the money, and hence should understand that the BCCI's interests should be respected.

None the less, refer to my above post, all this complaining looks to be for nothing.
Completely agree.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, absolutely. It completely and totally removes the need for it.

Hopefully, maybe in time that might just be recognised. It clearly isn't at the moment, but I'm still hopeful.
 

duffer

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well thats not the what that CSA, CA and ECB have been saying. Sutherland seem to make it out that Australian teams would have first choice of Australian players, no matter what. That was meant to be one of the big issues with Australian players signing contracts. But looking at what happened in South African Twenty20 comp, then I guess there is the option of other states/provinces/counties getting paid excessive amounts to use their players from IPL sides.
Modi confirms what I said earlier:

Elaborating on the case of Michael Hussey, who is caught between Western Australia and Chennai Super Kings for the Champions League, Modi said, "In the case of Michael Hussey, Chennai Super Kings has the option to keep him and pay a relieving fees to Western Australia. The option is with Super Kings."

However, players like David Hussey, whose IPL team, Kolkata Knight Riders, failed to qualify for the Champions League, will have to play for Victoria, he said. "In case of David Hussey, he has to play for his home team if his IPL team has not qualified. If his home team has qualified, which it has, then he plays for them. The county option is his third fall back," Modi said.


From IPL teams get first pick on players

So it goes IPL> Home country > County/other contracted team.
 

duffer

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He said .5 mill per player for the tournament if memory serves me correctly. Surely they'd pay that for Hussey when the final cash prize is 5million.

I wonder if the 4 foreigner rule applies to this tournament though.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
I wonder...will one player play for more than one league? Or will we have something like the Champions' League where all the internationals are distributed across club/city teams?
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
Is anyone else here feeling increasingly worried about the game's future? Where will we be in 10, 15 years' time? All this talk on who representing whom is a little too disturbing for me. The sport has always been largely orientated around the international game and it appears that that could collapse overnight.

There's a great deal of talk about the need to preserve Test cricket, but it simply isn't cost-effective enough compared to the shorter game (apart from in England). Who are we preserving it for, if the majority of the cricket-playing world all but rejects it? These are worrying days, very worrying. I just hope the ICC can show some mettle for once and snap the lid back on this Pandora's Box.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Is anyone else here feeling increasingly worried about the game's future? Where will we be in 10, 15 years' time? All this talk on who representing whom is a little too disturbing for me. The sport has always been largely orientated around the international game and it appears that that could collapse overnight.
I love the club system, to be honest. It makes for some great cricket, and anyone who thinks players only play their hardest when representing their country are ridiculous. KP doesn't play less hard because he represents England.

There's a great deal of talk about the need to preserve Test cricket, but it simply isn't cost-effective enough compared to the shorter game (apart from in England). Who are we preserving it for, if the majority of the cricket-playing world all but rejects it? These are worrying days, very worrying. I just hope the ICC can show some mettle for once and snap the lid back on this Pandora's Box.
How is the ICC going to say to a country that they cannot make money? What do you think the ICC can do? Also, ICC basically is governed by the individual boards, and if India, Australia, South Africa and England are all in this, who or what is going to do something?
 

Jungle Jumbo

International Vice-Captain
I love the club system, to be honest. It makes for some great cricket, and anyone who thinks players only play their hardest when representing their country are ridiculous. KP doesn't play less hard because he represents England.
Oh, I am a strong supporter of domestic cricket - particularly historic county/provincial/state cricket. But equally I fear club cricket becoming too powerful. If you were to ask the English members on here whether they put their county before their country or not, the majority would probably reply in the negative. If anything I would like to see a strengthening of the existing structures - renewed interest in the Ranji Trophy, the Pura Cup, the Championship - together with the Twenty20, but with the same sides competing in all three forms. This is why it would be beneficial to have an IPL window and not have any other form of Premier League.

How is the ICC going to say to a country that they cannot make money? What do you think the ICC can do? Also, ICC basically is governed by the individual boards, and if India, Australia, South Africa and England are all in this, who or what is going to do something?
Exactly. Nothing can stop them. The ICC are a vain hope of mine. Money talks, nothing else does these days - and what will that lead us to?
 

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
I love the club system, to be honest. It makes for some great cricket, and anyone who thinks players only play their hardest when representing their country are ridiculous. KP doesn't play less hard because he represents England.
But what kind of mickey mouse organisation allows for the player dispute surrounding who certain players in high demand should play for whilst allowing the personal dislike that one board has of a certain competition become policy for everyone to follow.

How is the ICC going to say to a country that they cannot make money? What do you think the ICC can do? Also, ICC basically is governed by the individual boards, and if India, Australia, South Africa and England are all in this, who or what is going to do something?
I think its quite cynical the way the BCCI, most visibly, and other money blessed cricketing boards are using the ICC for their own private affairs, I really do.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
You realise that the ICC isn't set up like NASCAR right? Its a body that is accountable to all ICC members. The participants run the game.

So as SS stated, if the majority of the boards want this tournament, why on Earth would the ICC stop it, and on top of that, what gives them the right to?

Unless the ICC become a separate governing body, which I stress they are not atm, then there is nothing they can, nor should, do.
 

Jamee999

Hall of Fame Member
The ICC is effectively just a union, right? Without the boards, it doesn't really exist...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Honestly, there's really no point in worrying. As I said in the brockley "Global impact of the IPL" thread recently, we simply cannot know what's going to happen.

Ian Botham said earlier today on Eng-NZ commentary something I've been thinking for ages - the IPL would not be possible without international cricket. The whole point is it's established stars - established via their deeds in international cricket. Had it been purely an Indian domestic tournament like the Twenty20 Cup of the Pro20, it'd never have had anything like the TV deals it has.

Yet we could also see a situation where the thing becomes so popular it doesn't even need international stars. We just don't know. It's so completely different to anything that's happened before that there's simply no reliable precedent.

Or on the other hand, the thing could become relatively unpopular after a few years, especially if the golden-goose-effect kicks-in, something that's far from impossible (though also far from guranteed).

We simply don't know. There's no sense worrying. Yes, there is the chance Test cricket as we know it could be destroyed, and it'd be silly to deny it. But if it is, there's nothing as can be done. We've just got to wait and see what happens. It'd be a terrible, terrible shame but sadly, very bad things do happen on this planet from time to time. There's also the chance that the threat will pass - Test cricket has been pretty resilient to date, surviving many possible destructive forces.
 

Top